Goggin v. Goggin
2011 UT 76
Utah2011Background
- Dennis and Tammy Goggin divorced in 2005; Tammy filed a separate civil suit for equitable relief and damages, which the district court granted.
- Several parties appealed; some notices were untimely, so those claims are not reviewed.
- Dennis's timely appeal challenges (i) constructive trust on the Riverbend Property, (ii) an express oral agreement between Tammy and Dennis, and (iii) whether the Riverbend Property is part of the marital estate.
- Riverbend Property was purchased with premarital and contributed funds; title listed Construct Tech, not Tammy or Dennis personally.
- Evidence showed Tammy contributed to developing the property and equestrian facilities; the district court treated Construct Tech and Construction Industrial as alter egos of Dennis.
- The district court held Tammy’s and Dennis’s joint efforts caused the Riverbend Property to lose its premarital character and ordered a constructive trust; it also found an express oral agreement but found it unenforceable for lack of specificity and declared the property part of the marital estate for divorce proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeals by Potential Appellants | Potential Appellants claim they are timely under Rule 4 but rely on broad notices. | Rule 3(d) requires specific party identification; untimely for Potential Appellants. | Untimely; limited review to Dennis and Rosalie Trustee. |
| Imposition of a constructive trust on Riverbend Property | Tammy argued alter ego theory warrants constructive trust for Tammy’s benefit. | Dennis contends no unjust enrichment or traceable property supports a constructive trust. | District court did not err; constructive trust justified under equity. |
| Enforceability of express oral agreement | Tammy asserted an enforceable oral contract to purchase, hold, and develop the property. | Agreement lacked definite terms; not enforceable as a contract. | Enforceable express oral agreement not proven; reversed portion. |
| Riverbend Property as part of the marital estate | Property should be treated as marital for equitable distribution. | If not marital, constructive trust would be pointless for divorce proceedings. | District court did not err; property deemed part of marital estate for purposes of division. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc., 199 P.3d 957 (Utah 2008) (jurisdictional rule on appellate notice specificity)
- Nielsen v. Gold's Gym, 78 P.3d 600 (Utah 2003) (essential terms needed for a contract; indefiniteness defeats enforceability)
- Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler v. Young, 94 P.3d 179 (Utah 2004) (lack of definite language defeats express oral agreement)
- Rawlings v. Rawlings, 240 P.3d 754 (Utah 2010) (constructive trust available to remedy unjust enrichment; standard of review)
- Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, Inc., 2 P.3d 447 (Utah 2000) (appeal timing and procedural considerations under Utah rules)