Jesperson v. Jesperson, 16413
| Decision Date | 20 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 16413,16413 |
| Citation | 610 P.2d 326 |
| Parties | Veneta JESPERSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Leroy JESPERSON, Sr., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John L. Miles of Atkins, Wright & Miles, St. George, for defendant and appellant.
John W. Palmer of Palmer & Anderson, St. George, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from that portion of a decree of divorce which distributed marital property.
The parties were married on March 20, 1973 in Roswell, New Mexico. At the time of the marriage, defendant was 73 years of age, and plaintiff was 68. Defendant entered the marriage with virtually no assets. Plaintiff, at the time of the marriage, owned some furniture, an automobile, and savings in the aggregate amount of $22,500. Plaintiff also owned a mobile home which she had purchased for $17,500 (cash) shortly before the marriage.
At various times during the course of their marriage, plaintiff and defendant owned three different mobile homes, including the one purchased by plaintiff prior to the marriage. On each of the homes, defendant allegedly performed various landscaping and repair projects which enhanced the value thereof, such that each of them sold for a profit. 1 Both parties received monthly social security benefits but neither was gainfully employed. 2
On September 1, 1978, plaintiff filed an action for divorce. Following a trial on the matter, the court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a divorce and entered findings which included the following:
The Defendant, William Leroy Jesperson, Sr., has treated the Plaintiff cruelly, causing her great mental distress and anguish. Further, the Defendants acts have destroyed the legitimate objects of matrimony, and further marriage relations between Plaintiff and Defendant are impossible. The Defendant has been guilty of gross and repeated marital misconduct 3 which not only constitutes grounds for divorce, but which should be considered in making an equitable division of property.
The court then proceeded to divide the property. Each of the parties was awarded his or her own items of personal property and effects, as well as all savings and checking accounts standing in his or her name. 4 In addition, plaintiff was awarded the household furniture, fixtures and appliances as well as an automobile.
The only other asset of the marriage was a mobile home located in St. George, Utah. The home was purchased in 1974 for $19,027 and sold just prior to the divorce for $27,000. The trial court ordered that plaintiff be awarded the following:
(1) The sum of $19,027.00 as a return to Plaintiff of the amount expended by her in the purchase of said property.
(2) An amount equal to 77% of the net sale remaining from the sales price of $27,000.00 after deducting the above stated amount of $19,027.00 and the costs of said sale.
Defendant received the following:
An amount equal to 23% of the net proceeds received by Plaintiff and Defendant from the sale of their mobile home and lot in the Dixie Downs area, after deducting from said gross sales price the sum of $19,027.00, as a return to Plaintiff of her purchase price, and the costs of said sale.
Defendant's basic argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property. He claims that the court improperly refused to award him the value of his labor on the three personal residences and one-half the gain realized on the sale of the three homes; that the actual conduct of the parties demonstrates that a gift was made and that the parties considered themselves equal owners of their property; and that the trial court improperly considered marital misconduct in making the property division.
By the very nature of a property division, the marital estate is evaluated according to what property exists at the time the marriage is terminated. 5 Defendant's first argument that he should be compensated for his efforts in improving the property owned by the parties is therefore obviated.
Defendant's next claim, that plaintiff made a gift to defendant of one-half of the St. George home, likewise fails. Although the home was held in joint tenancy, that is not conclusive that a gift has been made. The trial judge has wide discretion in the division of marital property (a matter of equity) and his findings will not be disturbed unless the record shows there has been an abuse of discretion. 6 The trial court found as follows:
Although the mobile home in issue is (was) held in joint tenancy, there was no intention by Plaintiff to create a one-half property interest in Defendant, nor any expectation by Defendant that he had received a one-half property interest.
The record discloses no abuse of discretion in making such a finding in the instant case.
Defendant's final point on appeal is that the trial court improperly considered marital misconduct in making the property division. We have previously held that a trial court must consider many factors in making a property settlement in a divorce proceeding, but that the purpose of the settlement should not be to impose punishment on either party. 7 Although the court ruled that "marital misconduct . . . should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...to the granting of a divorce decree, the court is limited by the amount of property in its hands for division"); Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d 326, 328 (Utah, 1980) ("By the very nature of a property division, the marital estate is evaluated according to what property exists at the time ......
-
In re Kiley
...232 ; see also Preston v. Preston , 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982) ; Georgedes v. Georgedes , 627 P.2d 44 (Utah 1981) ; Jesperson v. Jesperson , 610 P.2d 326 (Utah 1980) ; Humphreys v. Humphreys , 520 P.2d 193 (Utah 1974).50 Burt v. Burt , 799 P.2d 1166, 1172 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) ("Each part......
-
Goggin v. Goggin
...quotation marks omitted). The court may not consider “marital misconduct” in making the property division, however. Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d 326, 328 (Utah 1980); Read v. Read, 594 P.2d 871, 872 (Utah 1979) (stating that “the purpose of [a property] settlement should not be to impos......
-
Branch v. Western Petroleum, Inc., 17178
...may affirm a trial court's decision on proper grounds even though different than those relied upon by the trial court. Jesperson v. Jesperson, Utah, 610 P.2d 326 (1980); Allphin Realty, Inc. v. Sine, Utah, 595 P.2d 860 In sum, the trial court properly ruled that Western was strictly liable ......
-
The Conundrum of Gifted, Inherited and Premarital Property in Divorce
...or exchanges or where the acquiring spouse has made a gift of an interest therein to the other spouse. Cf. Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d 326 (Utah 1980). An exception to this rule would be where part or all of the gift or inheritance is awarded to the nondonee or nonheir spouse in lieu o......
-
Views from the Bench
...the marriage. See Preston v. Preston, 646 P.2d 705 (Utah 1982); Georgedes v. Georgedes, 627 P.2d 44 (Utah 1981) Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d 326 (Utah 1980); Humphreys v. Humphreys, 520 P.2d 193 (Utah 1974). In the past decade our appellate courts have recognized the value of adopting a......