Lamar v. Lamar
| Decision Date | 23 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 20111065–CA.,20111065–CA. |
| Citation | 722 Utah Adv. Rep. 47,292 P.3d 86 |
| Parties | Richard T. LAMAR, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Jodi A. LAMAR, Respondent and Appellee. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
292 P.3d 86
722 Utah Adv. Rep. 47
Richard T. LAMAR, Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
Jodi A. LAMAR, Respondent and Appellee.
No. 20111065–CA.
Court of Appeals of Utah.
Nov. 23, 2012.
[292 P.3d 87]
Richard T. Lamar, North Logan, Appellant Pro Se.
R. Christian Hansen, Logan, for Appellee.
Before Judges ORME, DAVIS, and VOROS.
PER CURIAM:
¶ 1 Appellant Richard T. Lamar (Husband) appeals from the divorce decree entered in this case. He claims that the district court erred by (1) ordering him to pay one half of a $4,999 judgment against Appellee Jodi A. Lamar (Wife), (2) entering insufficient findings of fact regarding Wife's needs and earning capacity, (3) ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife's attorney fees, and (4) ordering Husband to repay Wife for her 2008 federal tax refund.
¶ 2 Husband essentially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. “We review challenges to findings of fact for clear error.” Henshaw v. Henshaw, 2012 UT App 56, ¶ 10, 271 P.3d 837. “A trial court's factual determinations are clearly erroneous only if they are in conflict with the clear weight of the evidence, or if this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Kimball v. Kimball, 2009 UT App 233, ¶ 14, 217 P.3d 733 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, in order to successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support factual findings, an appellant must first marshal all the evidence supporting the challenged findings and then demonstrate why it is legally insufficient. See id. ¶ 20, n. 51 “Even where
[292 P.3d 88]
¶ 3 To enable the appellant to marshal the evidence and to allow an appellate court to conduct a review of the record, an appellant must provide an adequate record. Rule 11(e)(2) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedures estates,
If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion. Neither the court nor the appellee is obligated to correct appellant's deficiencies in providing the relevant portions of the transcript.
Utah R.App. P. 11(e)(2). Based upon Husband's failure to provide an adequate record and the resulting failure to satisfy the marshaling requirement, we do not consider the issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's findings of fact. Accordingly, we review only Husband's claims that the findings are legally insufficient to support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taft v. Taft
...the evidence, or if [the] court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Lamar v. Lamar , 2012 UT App 326, ¶ 2, 292 P.3d 86 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).¶ 17 The trial court found that “testimony at trial established that [Husband] treats both bus......
- Clarke v. Clarke
-
R4 Constructors LLC v. Inbalance Yoga Corp.
...v. Gem State Mutual of Utah , 794 P.2d 847, 849 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (cleaned up); see also Lamar v. Lamar , 2012 UT App 326, ¶ 5, 292 P.3d 86 (per curiam) (holding appellant could not demonstrate district court abused its discretion in its alimony award because appellant had not included a......
-
LD III LLC v. Davis
...such, can be effectively challenged only by negating the evidence supporting the award. See Lamar v. Lamar , 2012 UT App 326, ¶ 2, 292 P.3d 86 (per curiam). A party does not meaningfully marshal the evidence by trotting out a litany of the evidence it presented below or otherwise "reargu[in......