Robinson v. Robinson
Citation | 2010 UT App 96,232 P.3d 1081 |
Decision Date | 22 April 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 20090082-CA.,20090082-CA. |
Parties | Michael S. ROBINSON, Petitioner and Appellant,v.Debra J. ROBINSON, Respondent and Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Utah |
Stephen T. Hard, Holladay, for Appellant.
Dean C. Andreasen and Sarah L. Campbell, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges DAVIS, ORME, and VOROS.
¶ 1 Petitioner Michael S. Robinson (Husband) appeals the Decree of Divorce finalizing his divorce from Respondent Debra J. Robinson (Wife). Husband argues that the district court erred, in several respects, by enforcing a stipulation between the parties. We affirm.
¶ 2 During Husband and Wife's marriage, they acquired many pieces of income-producing real property, including condominiums, vacant land, and strip malls. The most valuable of these pieces of property was a strip mall in southern Utah (the plaza). After Husband filed for divorce in February 2007, the parties, over the course of several months, discussed their differing views as to how they should divide the various properties in which they had an interest.
¶ 3 On November 2, 2007, Husband and Wife attended formal mediation, at which they were each represented by counsel. At the mediation, the parties finally resolved the property division issues and signed a Stipulation and Property Settlement Agreement (the stipulation). The stipulation calculated Wife's share of various assets to be approximately $1.78 million, awarded the plaza to Husband, and provided that Husband would refinance the mortgage on the plaza so as to pay Wife the $1.78 million. The parties stipulated that the fair market value of the plaza was $7.25 million. The stipulation also provided that Husband would file a loan application within fifteen days and that Wife would provide information necessary to assist Husband in preparing the application.
¶ 4 Husband not only failed to apply for a loan within the fifteen days provided for in the stipulation, but he at no time thereafter made such an application. In February 2008, Wife moved for entry of a divorce decree based on the stipulation. Husband thereafter filed motions to set aside the stipulation, arguing that his performance under the stipulation was excused because due to the parties' mistaken assumptions regarding the status of the plaza's leases, it was impossible for him to secure the contemplated loan on the plaza.
¶ 5 Based upon affidavits and proffered testimony, the commissioner recommended that the stipulation be enforced. The commissioner reasoned, “[I]t's clear to me that the deal was reached in a fair fashion, and it represented the parties' agreement at the time.” The district court then, without complying with Husband's request for an evidentiary hearing, accepted the commissioner's recommendations and entered the decree of divorce incorporating the provisions of the stipulation.
¶ 6 Husband argues that his performance under the stipulation should have been excused under the contractual defenses of mutual mistake and impossibility. Whether such defenses should have afforded Husband relief under the facts as he argues them is a question of law that we review for correctness. See American Towers Owners Ass'n v. CCI Mech., Inc., 930 P.2d 1182, 1185 (Utah 1996).
¶ 7 Husband next argues that in order to enforce the stipulation, the district court was obliged to make a specific determination that the stipulation represented a fair and equitable division of the parties' property. Whether the district court made the necessary factual findings to support its determination is a question of law that we review for correctness. Cf. State v. Nelson, 950 P.2d 940, 942-43 (Utah Ct.App.1997).
¶ 8 Husband also argues that the district court violated his due process rights when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before enforcing the stipulation and entering the decree of divorce. “Constitutional issues, including questions regarding due process, are questions of law that we review for correctness.” Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 25, 100 P.3d 1177.
¶ 9 Husband argues that the district court erred in failing to grant relief under two contractual defenses. Because neither of these defenses was applicable to the facts of this case, we conclude that the district court did not err in this regard.
¶ 10 Husband alleges that he should have been relieved from performance under the stipulation because of the contractual defense of mutual mistake.1
¶ 11 Further, even had Husband, as he alleges, made a mistake in his valuation due to inadequate information, his argument would still be unavailing because “[u]nder contract law, a party may not rescind an agreement based on mutual mistake where that party bears the risk of mistake.” State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 387-88 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (citing 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 215 (1991)). “A party bears the risk of a mistake when ... he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient....” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 154 (1981); see also Klas v. Van Wagoner, 829 P.2d 135, 141 n. 8 (Utah Ct.App.1992) ( ). Thus, if Husband did not feel that the information upon which he relied was sufficient, he should have either insisted on any information he felt he needed before he entered into the stipulation or modified the terms of the stipulation accordingly. But as the commissioner recognized, Husband took no such steps to avoid the risk associated with inadequate information:
To the extent [Husband] relied upon [Wife]'s handwritten analysis or any other verbal representations that she made, [Husband] chose to rely upon those representations and he chose not to include any of those representations in the [stipulation], to make any reference to them whatsoever, or to include them as pre-conditions.
The commissioner determined that, instead, Husband was simply asking for the deal to be fair “in hindsight,” which is not a ground for rescission see
Blackhurst v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 699 P.2d 688, 692 (Utah 1985) ( ). Thus, the defense of mutual mistake does not provide relief under the facts of this case.
¶ 12 Husband also argues that his performance under the stipulation should have been excused due to the impossibility of such performance. “Under the contractual defense of impossibility, an obligation is deemed discharged if an unforeseen event occurs after formation of the contract and without fault of the obligated party, which event makes performance of the obligation impossible or highly impracticable.” Western Props. v. Southern Utah Aviation, Inc., 776 P.2d 656, 658 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (emphases added) (footnote omitted); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 266(1) (1981) . This defense is wholly inapplicable here because Husband alleges no unforeseen event occurring after the stipulation was signed in November 2007 that altered the possibility of performance. See generally Western Props., 776 P.2d at 658 n. 3 (). Instead, Husband argues in his brief that at no point could he have obtained a loan “given the state of the leases in November 2007, January 2008, or anytime thereafter.” 3 Thus, without any later-occurring event rendering performance impossible or highly impracticable, Husband's argument of impossibility is unavailing and the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knowlton v. Knowlton
...simplified). In sum, "a stipulation will ordinarily be enforced unless the court finds it to be unfair or unreasonable." Robinson v. Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, ¶ 13, P.3d 1081 (quotation simplified). ¶48 Before the trial court, Bradley cited Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314 (Utah Ct. App. 1990), ......
-
Robinson v. Robinson
...Robinson, 2016 UT App 32, 368 P.3d 147 ; Robinson v. Jones Waldo Holbrook & McDonough, 2016 UT App 34, –––P.3d ––– –; Robinson v. Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, 232 P.3d 1081.¶ 3 After filing for divorce in February 2007, Husband and Wife attempted to disentangle the real property interests with......
-
Robinson v. Robinson
...assumptions regarding the status of [leases at Phoenix Plaza], it was impossible for him to secure the contemplated loan." Robinson v. Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, ¶ 4, 232 P.3d 1081. The district court denied Husband's motion and entered a decree of divorce incorporating the Stipulation on De......
-
Cent. Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. Upper E. Union Irrigation Co.
...affords a party relief from its obligations under a contract is a question of law that we review for correctness. See Robinson v. Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, ¶ 6, 232 P.3d 1081 (noting that whether contract defenses can afford relief is a question of law reviewed for correctness). We hold tha......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...of mutual mistake and impossibility should have afforded husband relief under the facts. See Robinson v. Robinson, 2010 UT App 96, ¶ 6, 232 P.3d 1081. (11) Whether the trial court violated husband's due process rights when it failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before enforcing a stipulat......