Jensen V. Jensen : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 1999 Jensen v. Jensen : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Clark W. Sessions; Clyde, Snow, Sessions, Swenson; attorneys for appellee. Harold G. Christensen, Rodney R. Parker, Julianne P. Blanch; Snow, Christensen, Martineau; attorneys for appellant. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, Jensen v. Jensen, No. 990465 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1999). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca2/2183 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LINDA H. JENSEN, Petitioner/Appellant, No. 990465-CA vs. JAMES T. JENSEN, Argument Priority 15 Respondent/Appellee. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court Salt Lake County, State of Utah Honorable David S. Young, Presiding HAROLD G. CHRISTENSEN (A0638) RODNEY R. PARKER (A411 0) CLARK W. SESSIONS (A2914) JULIANNE P. BLANCH (A6495) CLYDE, SNOW, SESSIONS & SWENSON SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU Attorneys for Appellee Attorneys for Appellant One Utah Center, Thirteenth Floor 10 Exchange Place, Eleventh Floor 201 South Main Street Post Office Box 45000 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2216 Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-500Q __ i) Telephone:(801) 322-2516 Telephone: (801) 521-9000 ourt of Appeals DEC n 6 1999 Julia D'Aiesandro Clerk of the Court IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LINDA H. JENSEN, Petitioner/Appellant, No. 990465-CA vs. JAMES T. JENSEN, Argument Priority 15 Respondent/Appellee. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court Salt Lake County, State of Utah Honorable David S. Young, Presiding HAROLD G. CHRISTENSEN (A0638) RODNEY R. PARKER (A411 0) CLARK W. SESSIONS (A2914) JULIANNE P. BLANCH (A6495) CLYDE, SNOW, SESSIONS & SWENSON SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU Attorneys for Appellee Attorneys for Appellant One Utah Center, Thirteenth Floor 10 Exchange Place, Eleventh Floor 201 South Main Street Post Office Box 45000 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-2216 Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-5000 Telephone:(801) 322-2516 Telephone: (801) 521-9000 LIST OF PARTIES All parties are identified in the caption. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS . i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................... ii JURISDICTION ........................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................ 1 GOVERNING LAW ..................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................. 2 A. Nature ofthe Case, Course ofProceedings and Disposition Below ...... 2 B. Statement ofFacts ............................................ 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................ 13 ARGUMENT .......................................................... 14 I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO AWARD WIFE ONE- HALF OF THE ZIONS BANK STOCK.......................... 16 II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INCLUDE THE PARTIES' INTEREST IN THE RANCH PROPERTIES IN THE MARITAL ESTATE. ....................................... 21 A. All ofthe Ranch Properties Should Have Been Included in the Marital Estate Because They Were Commingled with Marital Assets and Enhanced by the Parties' Joint Efforts ............................................... 21 B. Additional Reasons Why Moynier Ranch Should Have Been Included in the Marital Estate ........................ 23 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 24 ADDENDUM ......................................................... 26 -1- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Barkley v. Barkley, 119 Ohio App. 3d 155, 694 N.E.2d 989 (1997) ................ 15 Bingham v. Bingham, 872 P.2d 1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) ....................... 1 Bushell v. Bushell, 649 P .2d 85 (Utah 1982) .................................. 20 Continental Bank and Trust, Co. v. Kimball, 21 Utah 2d 153, 442 P.2d 472 (Utah 1968) ........................................... 17 Cummings v. Cummings, 821 P.2d 472 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) ..................... 2 Dubois v. Dubois, 29 Utah 2d 75, 504 P.2d 1380 (Utah 1973) .................... 20 Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) ................... 14, 15,22-23 Estate ofAshton v. Ashton, 898 P.2d 824 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) .................... 17 Glover v. Glover, 121 Utah 2d 362, 242 P.2d 298 (1952) ........................ 19 Greener v. Greener, 116 Utah 571, 212 P.2d 194 (1949) .................. 17, 18, 20 Hart v. Hart, 377 So.2d 51 (Fla. App. 1979) .................................. 19 In reMarriage ofModnick, 33 Cal.3d 897, 191 Cal. Rptr. 629, 663 P.2d 181 (1983) ............................................... 19 Machado v. Machado, 58 Cal.2d 501, 25 Cal. Rptr. 87, 375 P.2d 55 (1962) ......... 18 Madsonia Realty Co. v. Zion's Bank and Trust Co. (In re Madsen's Estate), 123 Utah 2d 327, 259 P.2d 595 (1953) ................................. 19 Marshall v. Marshall, 166 W.Va. 304, 273 S.E.2d 360 (1980) ................... 19 McCoullough v. Wasserback, 30 Utah 2d 398, 518 P.2d 691 (1974) ............ 16, 17 Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304 (Utah 1988) ...................... 15, 21,23 Neill v. Royce, 101 Utah 181, 120 P.2d 327 (1941) .......................... 16, 20 -11- Portillo v. Shappie, 97 N.M. 59, 636 P.2d 878 (1981) .......................... 15 Savage v. Savage, 658 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1983) ................................ 24 Schaumberg v. Schaumberg, 875 P.2d 598 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) .............. 15, 22 Sloane v. Sloane, 132 Ariz. 414, 646 P.2d 299 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1982) ............ 18 Smith v. Smith, 860 P.2d 634 (Idaho 1993) ................................... 19 Valladee v. Valladee, 149 Ariz. 304, 718 P.2d 206 (Ariz. App. 1986) .............. 18 Weaver v. Weaver, 21 Utah 2d 166, 442 P.2d 928 (1968) ........................ 20 Statutes Utah Code Ann. § 78-2a-3(2)(h) ............................................ 1 Dolowitz, The Conundrum ofGifted, Inherited and Premarital Property in Divorce, 11 (Apr.) Utah B.J. 16 (1998) .............................. 16 -111- IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS LINDA H. JENSEN, Petitioner/Appellant, No. 990465-CA vs. JAMES T. JENSEN, Argument Priority 15 Respondent/Appellee. BRIEF OF APPELLANT JURISDICTION Linda H. Jensen ("Wife") appeals a final Supplemental Decree of Divorce entered by the district court on January 19, 1999. This court's jurisdiction is based upon Utah Code Ann. § 78-2a-3(2)(h). STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Husband, a lawyer, transferred certain Zions Bank stock he received as a gift to himself and Wife as joint tenants in 1986. Did the trial court err in nevertheless holding the stock to be husband's separate property, based upon Husband's alleged subjective intent that he did not really mean to make Wife an equal owner of the stock? This issue presents a question of law and is reviewed for correctness. Bingham v. Bingham, 872 P .2d 1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). This issue was preserved at R. 120-21. 2. Did the trial court err in awarding all of the parties' interest in significant ranching operations to Husband, even though the parties both enhanced the value of those operations through marital funds and their joint efforts during the maiTiage? This issue is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Cummings v. Cummings, 821 P.2d 472 (Utah Ct. App. 1991 ). This issue was preserved at R. 111-19. GOVERNING LAW There are no constitutional provisions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations whose interpretation is determinative or of central importance. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Nature ofthe Case, Course ofProceedings and Disposition Below. The parties were married July 30, 1970. Wife filed a complaint for divorce on Feb ruary 16, 1996. (R. 1-4.) The trial was held October 28-30, 1997, and November 12, 1997. Over a year later, the court issued its Memorandum Decision, Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw, and Supplemental Decree ofDivorce on January 19, 1999, in which the court determined that, after a twenty-seven year marriage, the bulk of the parties' estate consisted ofHusband's separate property. (R. 196-246.) Husband timely filed Objections to Supplemental Findings of Fact, Supplemental Decree of Divorce, Motion to Amend and Request for Oral Argument pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 52 on January 29, 1999. (R. 247-52.) This motion was denied by order entered April14, 1999. (R. 296-99.) The notice of appeal was filed May 13, 1999. (R. 300-02.) -2- B. Statement ofFacts. James T. Jensen ("Husband") and Linda H. Jensen ("Wife") were married in 1970 in Utah and had three children during the marriage, two of whom had reached the age of major ity at the time of trial, and the other of whom was still in high school. (R. 1-2, R. 323 at pp. 5, 12-13.) Wife was fifty-one years old at the time of trial. She attended college for three years before the marriage but upon Husband's request did not work outside