Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 19187
| Decision Date | 18 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 19187,19187 |
| Citation | 703 P.2d 303 |
| Parties | Dallas Eugene JACOBSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mary Eula JACOBSEN, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Ronald W. Perkins, Ogden, for plaintiff and appellant.
Jo Ann B. Stringham, Vernal, for defendant and respondent.
The plaintiff and the defendant in this case were husband and wife until they were divorced in 1977. This was Mr. Jacobsen's second marriage. In 1972, his first wife obtained a judgment against Mr. Jacobsen for child support. Prior to that judgment, Mr. Jacobsen, in 1971, had conveyed by quitclaim deed his interest in a parcel of property to his second wife, Mary Jacobsen ("Mrs. Jacobsen"), the defendant in this case. This property was originally purchased in 1969 by Mr. and Mrs. Jacobsen and held as joint tenants until that conveyance. Mr. Jacobsen claims in this current action that Mrs. Jacobsen orally agreed to reconvey one-half interest in the property back to Mr. Jacobsen once the litigation with his first wife was resolved. The trial court found that Mr. Jacobsen's action was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata and granted Mrs. Jacobsen's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Since Mr. Jacobsen's conveyance of his interest to Mrs. Jacobsen in 1971, the property at issue has been the subject of the following litigation. In 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobsen were named as defendants in an action over the title to part of the property. Nash v. Jacobsen, Civil No. 7012 (District Court of Unitah County, Aug. 14, 1975). Mr. Jacobsen was dismissed from that case based on his representation that he had no interest in the property. The entire action was subsequently dismissed, and Mrs. Jacobsen was awarded the property by a court order in 1975. In 1977, Mrs. Jacobsen commenced a divorce action against Mr. Jacobsen. A divorce decree was entered based upon a stipulated property settlement. In that stipulation, Mr. Jacobsen granted to Mrs. Jacobsen all the property they had accumulated during their marriage except for a pickup truck.
In this action, Mr. Jacobsen alleged in his complaint that Mrs. Jacobsen induced him to sign the property settlement stipulation upon the express condition that she would reconvey to Mr. Jacobsen a one-half interest in the real property that is the subject of this suit, after Mr. Jacobsen had resolved all matters with his first wife. Accordingly, Mr. Jacobsen brought this action to require reconveyance of the property. Mrs. Jacobsen opposed the action by filing a motion for summary judgment, and the lower court granted that motion concluding that Mr. Jacobsen's action was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata. The court also found that Mr. Jacobsen's action was not brought in good faith and awarded Mrs. Jacobsen legal fees pursuant to U.C.A., 1953, § 78-27-56 (Supp.1983).
On appeal, Mr. Jacobsen challenges the trial judge's application of res judicata and the statute of limitations and asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because material issues of fact existed.
The trial judge made the following findings of fact concerning the application of the doctrine of res judicata:
Plaintiff had knowledge of the situation for considerable time preceeding 1977 and after the granting of the divorce in 1977.
Plaintiff stipulated and agreed in 1977 at the time of the divorce, to the granting of these properties to the defendant and further more [sic] the defendant assumed considerable obligations in return for receiving these properties.
Plaintiff also disclaimed these properties in the case of Nash v. Jacobsen.
The trial judge then concluded:
The matter is ... barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata based upon the Divorce Decree entered in 1977, Civil No. 9225 and the case of Nash v. Jacobsen, Civil No. 7012.
Mr. Jacobsen asserts that this conclusion was error and argues that res judicata does not apply, and that he has properly brought an independent action to attack the divorce decree because he had no reason to suspect that Mrs. Jacobsen would not convey an interest to him until September 1981. We, however, agree with the trial judge that the doctrine of res judicata does bar the action.
We have said:
When there has been an adjudication, it becomes res judicata as to those issues which were either tried and determined, or upon all issues which the party had a fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'Aston v. Aston
...and have determined in the other proceeding." Throckmorton v. Throckmorton, 767 P.2d 121, 123 (Utah App.1988) (quoting Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985)). In order for a claim to be barred by res judicata, both the prior claim and the current claim must meet three requirem......
-
State v. Sims
...fully adjudicated. Salt Lake Citizens Congress v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 846 P.2d 1245, 1251-52 (Utah 1992); Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985); Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983). The doctrine applies "when there has been a prior adjudic......
-
Raser Techs. Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
...or upon all issues which the party had a fair opportunity to present and have determined in the other proceeding." Jacobsen v. Jacobsen , 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985) (cleaned up). ¶11 Here, with regard to the first element, there is no dispute that both the Utah and Georgia cases involved......
-
Provo River Water Users' Ass'n v. Morgan
...to the Kamas Hills springs. 12 Therefore, we cannot say that he had a "fair opportunity" to litigate the issue. See Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985) (citing Mendenhall v. Kingston, 610 P.2d 1287, 1289 (Utah Plaintiffs argue that we must construe the decree expansively to ......