Bergmann v. Bergmann
428 P.3d 89
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Eugene and Karen Bergmann signed a 2001 Premarital Agreement that described a joint checking account for basic family living expenses and initially allocated contributions ($4,000/month from Eugene; $2,000/month plus Social Security from Karen), but did not expressly require rigid 50/50 contributions forever.
- Over the marriage the parties operated as if contributions should be equal, tracked contributions on a shared spreadsheet, and Karen paid substantially more; Eugene acknowledged being about $159,000 “in debt” to Karen in a 2010 email.
- In January 2011 the parties executed a simple 2011 Agreement: Eugene agreed to assign $170,000 of his home equity to Karen; two days later Karen deposited $20,000 into the joint account for family living expenses.
- After divorce proceedings, the trial court found both the Premarital Agreement and the 2011 Agreement enforceable, concluded the 2011 Agreement was supported by consideration (the $20,000 deposit), and awarded Karen $170,000 from Eugene’s half of house-sale proceeds.
- Eugene moved to alter or amend under Utah R. Civ. P. 59(a)(7) arguing the 2011 Agreement was voidable for mutual mistake (both that the parties believed the premarital agreement required 50/50 contributions and as to the amount owed). The trial court denied the motion and awarded Karen certain attorney fees; Eugene appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eugene) | Defendant's Argument (Karen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 Agreement is voidable for mutual mistake because the parties thought the Premarital Agreement required strict 50/50 contributions | The parties entered the 2011 Agreement under a shared mistaken belief that the premarital agreement mandated equal contributions, so the 2011 Agreement should be rescinded | The parties’ course of conduct and the 2011 Agreement show a contemporaneous accommodation and separate consideration; the Premarital Agreement did not legally mandate strict 50/50 contributions | Court affirmed: no clear error; sufficient evidence supports that the 2011 Agreement was an enforceable, separate contract supported by consideration and not the product of mutual mistake |
| Whether the 2011 Agreement is voidable for mutual mistake as to the amount Eugene owed Karen (i.e., $170,000) | The $170,000 figure was a mutual mistake; accounting evidence shows Eugene owed substantially less, so enforcement is improper | The parties acknowledged an unspecified debt and settled on $170,000 as a compromise; trial testimony and credibility findings support enforcement | Court affirmed: trial court credited evidence that the $170,000 was a settlement amount and rejected contrary accounting and expense testimony as not credible; no clear error in findings |
| Whether Karen is entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal | N/A (Eugene sought reversal) | Karen sought fees and costs for defending the appeal, noting the trial court had awarded some post-trial fees and Eugene’s appellate arguments largely repeated the denied motions | Court remanded to trial court to calculate reasonable appellate attorney fees and awarded Karen appellate costs; Karen prevailed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanpete Am., LLC v. Willardsen, 269 P.3d 118 (Utah 2011) (appellate review—trial court granted wide latitude on Rule 59 motions and will be disturbed only for abuse of discretion)
- Cantamar, LLC v. Champagne, 142 P.3d 140 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (definition of mutual mistake as shared misconception of a basic assumption supporting rescission)
- High Desert Estates LLC v. Arnett, 357 P.3d 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (mutual-mistake proponent must prove elements by clear and convincing evidence)
- Robert Langston, Ltd. v. McQuarrie, 741 P.2d 554 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (mutual mistake makes contract voidable and supports equitable rescission)
- Deep Creek Ranch, LLC v. Utah State Armory Board, 178 P.3d 886 (Utah 2008) (mixed factual and legal issues: review factual determinations for clear error and legal conclusions for correctness)
- Henshaw v. Henshaw, 271 P.3d 837 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (trial court has province to resolve witness credibility)
- Sauer v. Sauer, 400 P.3d 1204 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (deference to trial court credibility findings in bench trials)
- Osguthorpe v. Osguthorpe, 872 P.2d 1057 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (when a party prevails on appeal in a domestic action, appellate attorney fees may be awarded)