537 P.3d 633
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- Richard and Susan married in 2002; Richard had substantial pre-marital ownership of a Norfolk condo (Mooring Drive) that he later put in joint title; the parties also bought a Utah home (Ross Creek) using equity loans.
- From 2008–2012 Richard worked in Afghanistan and deposited $814,627 into a joint account; he later alleged large unexplained expenditures during that period and claimed Susan dissipated marital assets.
- Divorce was filed in 2018; the parties stipulated in 2019 that Mooring Drive and Ross Creek were marital property subject to equitable division even if title changed.
- Pretrial disclosures were due under Utah R. Civ. P. 26; Richard missed deadlines, produced his pretrial disclosures late, and the court excluded exhibits 2–8 for untimely disclosure because Richard failed to prove harmlessness.
- At a two-day bench trial the court found credibility problems with both parties, denied Richard’s dissipation claim (documentary evidence excluded), awarded Ross Creek equity to Susan and Mooring Drive equity to Richard, awarded Susan alimony, and offset Richard by $43,474 (including a $30,000 unilateral withdrawal by Richard).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings except it vacated and remanded the $30,000 offset for additional findings about how the funds were spent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of exhibits under Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5) | Susan: Richard failed timely pretrial disclosure; exhibits properly excluded. | Richard: Documents had been produced earlier in discovery so exclusion was harmless. | Exclusion affirmed — burden on Richard to prove harmlessness; no certificates of service and no proof of prior production. |
| Dissipation claim burden | Susan: Richard failed to make initial showing of dissipation. | Richard: His testimony sufficed to show dissipation from 2008–2012. | Affirmed — Richard’s uncorroborated, conclusory testimony did not meet the initial burden; burden never shifted to Susan. |
| Premarital equity in Mooring Drive | Susan: Parties’ 2019 stipulation made Mooring Drive marital and subject to division. | Richard: Stipulation did not waive his right to premarital contribution; he should receive premarital equity. | Affirmed — stipulation is binding and its plain language made the property marital; court need not infer omitted terms. |
| Harley‑Davidson purchase characterization | Susan: Motorcycle purchased during pendency is marital property absent proof of separate funds. | Richard: He bought it from separate premarital retirement funds. | Affirmed — presumption of marital property; Richard failed to rebut with credible evidence and court found his testimony not credible. |
| $30,000 unilateral withdrawal offset | Susan: Richard withdrew $30,000 from joint account without consent and should be offset. | Richard: Funds were used for Mooring Drive expenses (marital purpose). | Vacated and remanded — court made no findings about how the $30,000 was spent; additional findings required to support offset. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bodell Constr. Co. v. Robbins, 215 P.3d 933 (broad district court discretion in imposing discovery sanctions)
- Johansen v. Johansen, 504 P.3d 152 (pretrial disclosure rule requires serving copies of exhibits used in case-in-chief)
- Parker v. Parker, 996 P.2d 565 (party alleging dissipation must make initial showing before burden shifts)
- Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (marital estate generally valued at time of trial; court may address dissipation equitably)
- Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 507 P.3d 385 (factors relevant to dissipation inquiry)
- Dahl v. Dahl, 456 P.3d 276 (property acquired prior to decree is marital absent proof of separate funds)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 505 P.3d 56 (district court must supply adequate findings to support unequal division or offsets)