Pope v. Pope
| Decision Date | 15 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 15538,15538 |
| Parties | Connie Rae POPE, Plaintiff, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant, v. Dan LeRoy POPE, Defendant, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Jay D. Edmonds, Salt Lake City, for defendant, appellant, and cross-respondent.
Pete N. Vlahos, Ogden, for plaintiff, respondent, and cross-appellant.
This is a divorce action, in which the District Court for Cache County, sitting without a jury, entered a decree divorcing the parties, dividing their property, and awarding attorney's fees and costs to plaintiff. References herein to statutes and rules are to the Utah Code Ann., 1953, as amended, and the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, respectively.
Plaintiff and defendant were married more than ten years and have two daughters as issue of the marriage. After his marriage to plaintiff, defendant attended college and obtained a bachelor's degree in engineering and a master's degree in business administration. Plaintiff, on the other hand, terminated her education after one and one-half years of college and spent her time caring for the children. During their marriage, defendant and plaintiff acquired assets, mentioned infra.
In its division of this property the District Court awarded to defendant the family business property and certain other items of personalty, the net value of which was $76,577. Plaintiff was given the family residence, subject to the existing mortgage, the household furnishings, and certain other items of personalty. The net value of this property was $26,609. The District Court also ordered defendant to pay plaintiff $24,984 in cash, this being one-half of the amount by which the net value of property awarded defendant exceeded that awarded plaintiff.
Defendant urges on appeal that the District Court erred in calculating the value of the parties' property and debts, resulting in an unjust and inequitable division of the property. He claims the Court failed to include certain debts owed by defendant amounting to $24,225 in its calculation of the value of the business and other property awarded to him.
It is well established that
The trial court, in a divorce action, has considerable latitude of discretion in adjusting financial and property interests. A party appealing therefrom has the burden to prove there was a misunderstanding or misapplication of the law resulting in substantial and prejudicial error; or the evidence clearly preponderated against the findings; or such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion.
English v. English, Utah, 565 P.2d 409, 410 (1977).
However defendant's argument in thrust is that a serious inequity does exist as the obligation to pay the debts amounting to $24,225 results, in effect, in a division of the net value of property which gives sixty-five percent to the plaintiff and only thirty-five percent to the defendant. 1 In light of the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe, however, that the Court's division of property is equitable. Defendant was awarded the income-producing assets of the family. He has two college degrees and several years experience in operating his businesses and thus has a reasonably assured future of earnings and profits from his business activities. Plaintiff, however, has no college education and was unemployed at the time of trial. The Court awarded her no alimony. She was given custody of the children and only $135 per month for each child's support.
Defendant's other allegations of errors and omissions relating to the division of property are either without merit or nonprejudicial.
Defendant also contends that the Court's award to plaintiff of $1,500 attorney's fees and $30 costs must be reversed since plaintiff, in her pleadings, prayed for only $1,000 in attorney's fees and failed altogether to pray for costs.
Rule 54(c)(1) states in relevant part:
. . . Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taft v. Taft
...to make equitable provisions for deferred compensation in the context of the property division in a divorce proceeding. See Pope v. Pope , 589 P.2d 752, 754 (Utah 1978) (concluding, first, that a higher interest rate than statutorily allowed may be equitably imposed where, “under the circum......
-
Marriage of Nickerson, Matter of
...97 Cal.App.3d 294, 158 Cal.Rptr. 679 (1979); In Re Marriage of Escamilla, 127 Cal.App.3d 963, 179 Cal.Rptr. 842 (1982); and Pope v. Pope, 589 P.2d 752 (Utah, 1978). The California cases concluded that the court could exercise its equitable powers in fashioning awards in dissolution proceedi......
-
Wadsworth v. Wadsworth
...circumstances, that award is reasonable and equitable." Stroud v. Stroud , 738 P.2d 649, 650 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (quoting Pope v. Pope , 589 P.2d 752, 754 (Utah 1978) ). And, in fact, setting equalization payments at the postjudgment interest rate, rather than a higher rate, may be an abus......
-
Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hosp., Inc.
...party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings." See also Pope v. Pope, Utah, 589 P.2d 752 (1978); Palombi v. D & C Builders, 22 Utah 2d 297, 452 P.2d 325 (1969). Cf. Motivated Management International v. Finney, Utah, 604 P.......
-
The Conundrum of Gifted, Inherited and Premarital Property in Divorce
...court. The Mortensen ruling affirming an unequal distribution of marital property was fully in accord with precedent, e.g., Pope v. Pope, 589 P.2d 752, 753 (Utah 1978), Kerr v. Kerr, 610 P.2d 1380, 1382-1383 (Utah 1980) and Henderson v. Henderson, 576 P.2d 1289, 1290 (Utah 1978), but the fa......
-
The Recovery of Attorney Fees in Utah: a Procedural Primer [1] for Practitioners - Part I
...that the pleadings could be amended to include attorney fees, even though not initially raised in the pleadings"). [20] Pope v. Pope, 589 P.2d 752, 753 (Utah 1978) ("[U]nder [Rule 54(c)(1), an award of attorney[] fees in excess of that requested in the pleadings, is allowable where the proo......