Preston v. Preston, 17597
| Decision Date | 30 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 17597,17597 |
| Citation | 646 P.2d 705 |
| Parties | George W. PRESTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lorna A. PRESTON, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert W. Gutke of Harris, Preston & Gutke, Logan, for plaintiff and appellant.
Findley P. Gridley, Ogden, for defendant and respondent.
In this appeal, the husband challenges the property settlement in a contested divorce decree. The parties, both of whom had children from prior marriages, were married about 7 years. Both parties had brought substantial properties to the marriage. Following the principle we have approved in cases like Georgedes v. Georgedes, Utah, 627 P.2d 44 (1981); Jesperson v. Jesperson, Utah, 610 P.2d 326 (1980), and Humphreys v. Humphreys, Utah, 520 P.2d 193 (1974), the district court concluded that each party should, in general, receive the real and personal property he or she brought to the marriage or inherited during the marriage. The question on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in applying that principle in three instances challenged by the husband.
The district court awarded the wife one-half of the value of a recreational cabin worth $34,000. (The cabin was awarded to the husband, but subject to his obligation, secured by a lien on the cabin, to pay the wife $17,000 within 18 months.) The court found that the cabin was constructed during the marriage by the parties "working as a family, and drawing on their earnings, the daily funds of all ...." As to the family's labor, the evidence supported that finding. But as to the $18,918.32 total out-of-pocket cost of construction, the evidence was uncontradicted that $9,310.93 came from the husband's sale of assets he owned prior to the marriage, and only the balance from his earnings during the marriage. Consequently, pursuant to the district court's own theory of division, the husband should have been given credit for this $9,310.93 contribution (together with the proportion of appreciation in value attributable thereto) before the value of the cabin was divided between the parties. Georgedes v. Georgedes, supra; Jesperson v. Jesperson, supra; Humphreys v. Humphreys, supra. The decree should be modified accordingly.
During the marriage, the wife inherited a half interest in some farmland west of Logan, some livestock, some grazing permits, and a building lot in Logan City. All of this property was awarded to the wife. The husband, who performed legal services for the decedent's estate at half the regular fee, performed legal work on the building lot, and did some work on the farm, argues that he should have been awarded a half interest in this property.
Without detailing the evidence on this contention, we find no error in the district court's refusal to award the husband a share of the property the wife acquired as an inheritance during the marriage. Even though the husband did some work on this property, he was not thereby joining his efforts in a "family project" like the recreational cabin. The wife's inheritance was not acquired through the "joint efforts of the parties," Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d at 328, any more than the husband's separate contribution to the cost of the cabin. By denying the wife a share of the husband's separate property contributed to the cabin and by denying the husband a share of the wife's inheritance, we treat the separate property of both parties on the same basis.
The parties' residence and their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorensen v. Sorensen
...the trial court in fashioning equitable awards of property, support, and alimony, circumstances not present here. See Preston v. Preston, 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982); see also Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304, 310 (Utah 1988) (Zimmerman, J., pre-marital asset, not a marital asset. 8 C......
-
In re Kiley
...equitable division of any property interests owned by the parties to a divorce.").49 West , 576 B.R. at 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. Hum......
-
Goggin v. Goggin
...v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018, 1022 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). 42.Burke, 733 P.2d at 135;see also Preston v. Preston, 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982) (holding that the husband was entitled to a credit for costs he paid for the construction of the marital home, because “th......
-
Finlayson v. Finlayson
...to the marriage or inherited during the marriage.' " Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304, 306 (Utah 1988) (quoting Preston v. Preston, 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982)); accord Rappleye, 855 P.2d at 263. This includes any appreciation of the separate property. Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314, 132......
-
Views from the Bench
...that each party should, in general, receive the real and personal property he or she brought into 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.2......
-
The Conundrum of Gifted, Inherited and Premarital Property in Divorce
...by one party: in the usual case, that property is returned to that party at divorce, absent exigent circumstances. Preston v Preston, 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982). 760 P.2d at 310. Factually, Mr. Mortensen's parents had organized a corporation and conveyed the family farm to it. They gave ......
-
Conundrum Revisited
...by one party: in the usual case, that property is returned to that party at divorce, absent exigent circumstances. Preston v. Preston, 646 P.2d 705, 706 (Utah 1982). 760 P2d at The exceptions articulated by Justice Howell, to which Justices Durham and Zftnmerman referred, were (1) the other......