Husband and Wife were married in 2015 and entered into a postnuptial agreement in 2017. As part of the postnuptial agreement Husband agreed to pay Wife $2,500 per month in child support, or one-half of his salary, whichever was greater.

The parties divorced in 2021.

Wife had an attorney, but Husband represented himself pro se. They entered in a Stipulation that incorporated the terms of the postnuptial agreement.

Years later, Husband realized he was paying twice the amount of child support as was required by the child support guidelines.

He filed a Motion to Set Aside under Rule 60(b)(4), claiming the child support order was void because Utah Code § 801- 3-203(2) states that “[t]he right of a child . . . to support, health and medical provider expenses, medical insurance, and child care coverage may not be affected by a premarital agreement.”

The trial court denied Husband’s motion because the plain language of the statute he cited applies to premarital agreements, and not postnuptial agreements.

Husband appealed.

The appellate court stated the standard of review. They typically review Rule 60(b) motions under an abuse of discretion standard, but when dealing with a 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment for being void, they review the motion under a correctness standard.

There are three basic situations in which the courts find a judgment is void: 1) where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, 2) where the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and 3) where the Court entered a judgment when a party did not receive “the notice required by due process.”

Husband did not argue that any of these situations were present.

Moreover, the appellate court found that the plain language of the prenuptial agreement statute applied to just that – prenuptial agreements. It does not apply to postnuptial agreements. The Court declined to rewrite the plan language of the statute. Therefore, the Court upheld he trial court’s order.

The court also noted that under the Davis v. Davis, 2011 UT App 311, ¶ 17 n.11, 263 P.3d 520, a party can agree to pay child support in excess of the child support guidelines.

See Reese v. Reese, 2026 UT App. 31.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.