Burnham v. Burnham, 20003
| Decision Date | 14 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 20003,20003 |
| Citation | 716 P.2d 781 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | Minnie L. BURNHAM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Alma Joseph BURNHAM, Defendant and Respondent. |
Richard K. Spratley, Bountiful, for plaintiff and appellant.
Ben P. Knowlton, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from the property division made in a divorce decree and from the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial. We affirm.
Plaintiff and defendant were married for fifty-one years. They have seven children, all of whom have reached their majority. Plaintiff worked all of her married life as a registered nurse and was still so employed on a part-time basis at the time of the divorce. Defendant was an employee of Utah Power & Light until 1975 when he retired and moved to Colorado City, Arizona, to be with his plural wife and their five minor children. At the time of the divorce, plaintiff and defendant's assets included a home in Farmington, Utah, valued by plaintiff at $118,500, a mobile home valued by plaintiff at $14,000, three cars (two in the possession of the plaintiff and one in defendant's), 460 shares of Utah Power & Light stock valued at $21 each, and a $5,000 money market certificate. The financial declaration submitted by defendant also listed two life insurance policies valued at death at $28,000 and $18,000, respectively, but having no known cash value. No testimony was elicited at trial from either party on the latter two items.
The court awarded the house and furniture, money market certificate, and two cars in the possession of the plaintiff to her. He awarded the 460 shares of Utah Power & Light stock, the mobile home stationed at Colorado City, and the car in defendant's possession to him. The court then added up the value of the property given to each party, $123,500 to plaintiff and $23,660 to defendant, which totaled $147,160. It found that because of the length of the marriage an equal division would be appropriate, with an award of $73,580 to each. Substracting the $23,660 share of the defendant from that award, it arrived at an additional $49,920 award to defendant, awarded plaintiff a life estate in the house and made the lien of defendant's share payable upon her death or sale of the house. Both parties were awarded their own retirement assets. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before entry of judgment, plaintiff brought her motion for a new trial, stating that she did not discover in time for trial the value of defendant's life insurance policy in the amount of $28,000. No mention was made of the $18,000 policy now included in her appeal, and we decline to consider it in our decision. Almon, Inc. v. Utah Liquor Control Commission, Utah, 696 P.2d 1210 (1985). The court denied the motion but allowed her to present argument on that one issue. It found that the policy had no present cash value, that the parties were both aware of it at trial and did not make it an issue, and awarded the policy to defendant.
In attacking the division of the marital estate, plaintiff relies principally on MacDonald v. MacDonald, 120 Utah 573, 236 P.2d 1066 (1951), for the proposition that the trial court failed to consider all of the factors there set out and failed to ascertain proper valuations of some of the property which she believes resulted in a prejudicial and inequitable distribution mandating reversal. The MacDonald court recognized that the factors relied upon by plaintiff afforded no magic solution in the division of marital assets. "The problem is of such a nature as not to be susceptible of solution by any exact formula; indeed the authorities frequently say that for that reason each case must be determined upon its own facts." MacDonald 236 P.2d at 1069. That principle of equity has survived evolving changes in domestic matters. In the distribution of the marital estate there is no fixed rule or formula. Gramme v. Gramme, Utah, 587 P.2d 144 (1978). Within certain limits that have been set by this Court, the trial court may make such orders in relation to the parties as may be equitable....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goggin v. Goggin
...Findings before we issued Goggin I, in which we concluded that the agreement was unenforceable. See Goggin I, 2011 UT 76, ¶ 38, 267 P.3d 885. 10.Burnham v. Burnham, 716 P.2d 781, 782 (Utah 1986). 11.Gardner v. Gardner, 748 P.2d 1076, 1078 (Utah 1988). 12.Goggin I, 2011 UT 76, ¶ 26, 267 P.3d......
-
Petersen v. Petersen
...interests of the parties to a divorce action, and its determinations are entitled to a presumption of validity. E.g., Burnham v. Burnham, 716 P.2d 781, 782 (Utah 1986). And although appellate courts may weigh the evidence and substitute their judgment for that of the trial court in divorce ......
-
Naranjo v. Naranjo
...compel such conveyances as are necessary to that end." Jackson v. Jackson, 617 P.2d 338, 340-41 (Utah 1980). See also Burnham v. Burnham, 716 P.2d 781, 782 (Utah 1986). In so doing, the court may take into consideration all of the pertinent circumstances in distributing the parties' propert......
-
Andersen v. Andersen, 870338-CA
...in divorce proceedings are given considerable discretion in adjusting the parties' financial and property interests. Burnham v. Burnham, 716 P.2d 781, 782 (Utah 1986). The trial court's actions are presumed valid, and, to overcome that presumption, the appealing party must demonstrate a tha......