Hartle v. Hartle, 20111057–CA.

• Decision Date: 01 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 20111057–CA.,20111057–CA.
• Citation: 289 P.3d 621,2012 UT App 312,720 Utah Adv. Rep. 29
• Parties: Penny R. HARTLE, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Donald M. HARTLE, Respondent and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

289 P.3d 621
720 Utah Adv. Rep. 29
2012 UT App 312

Penny R. HARTLE, Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
Donald M. HARTLE, Respondent and Appellant.

No. 20111057–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Nov. 1, 2012.

289 P.3d 622

Brent M. Brindley, St. George, for Appellant.

Penny R. Hartle, Hurricane, Appellee Pro Se.

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

¶ 1 Donald M. Hartle (Husband) appeals the divorce decree and supporting findings and conclusions entered in November 2011. More specifically, he challenges the trial court's enforcement of a settlement agreement between him and Penny R. Hartle (Wife) that was incorporated into the decree. We affirm.

1] [2] [3] ¶ 2 Husband first asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the settlement agreement was valid because there was no meeting of the minds. Whether the parties had a meeting of the minds sufficient to

[289 P.3d 623

form a contract is an issue of fact reviewed for clear error. See Terry v. Bacon, 2011 UT App 432, ¶ 11, 269 P.3d 188. When challenging an issue of fact, “an appellant must first marshal all the evidence in support of the finding and then demonstrate that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding even when viewing it in a light most favorable to the [trial] court.” Grgich v. Grgich, 2011 UT App 214, ¶ 13, 262 P.3d 418 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, this court will not disturb credibility determinations of the trial court. See id. ¶ 14.

4] ¶ 3 Husband has failed to marshal the evidence in support of the court's finding that the agreement was valid. In marshaling the evidence, appellants “cannot merely present carefully selected facts and excerpts from the record in support of their position.” Id. (citation omitted). Rather, an appellant must present the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court. See id. Husband has not even attempted to meet this burden. On the contrary, he merely asserts facts based on his own testimony, wholly failing to present...