Hartvigsen v. Hartvigsen
2018 UT App 238
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Danielle and Richard Hartvigsen married in 1995, separated in 2005, and divorced by bifurcated decree; a supplemental decree (after trial) divided property and awarded Danielle $1,000/month alimony and >$1M in property.
- Trial occurred in 2012; post-trial motions (including a new-trial motion) were denied in 2015; Danielle appealed pro se.
- Key factual disputes: (1) whether the court could impute income to Danielle (a Stanford J.D. who had not practiced as an attorney for many years) and how to calculate her needs; (2) whether a premarital house retitled in joint tenancy became marital property (gift presumption vs. intent); and (3) whether Danielle was denied due process by the court’s refusal to release additional funds for her to hire counsel.
- The district court imputed $50,000/year income to Danielle based on a vocational expert and found her claimed monthly expenses overstated and her testimony not credible.
- The court credited Richard’s testimony that he only added Danielle’s name to the pre-marital deed under duress and concluded the property remained his separate (premarital) asset.
- The district court denied Danielle’s motion for a new trial; the appellate court reviewed discretionary findings for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hartvigsen) | Defendant's Argument (Myers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imputation of income to Danielle | Court erred by imputing income as an attorney—she hadn’t practiced for ~19 years and no competent evidence she could obtain such work | Vocational expert identified attorney openings and entry-level salary ranges; court found Danielle employable and her job-search efforts inadequate | Affirmed: imputation to $50,000/year supported by vocational testimony and credibility findings; not an abuse of discretion |
| Calculation of Danielle’s needs for alimony | Court overstated/ignored proper standard; Danielle’s expense evidence should be accepted | Court found her expense claims overstated, unsupported, and contradicted; Richard’s testimony about marital standard of living was credible | Affirmed: court’s credibility determinations and needs assessment supported by evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Character of premarital house retitled as joint tenancy | Retitling presumed a gift converting property to marital property | Richard testified he only added Danielle’s name after threats and denied intent to gift; no other evidence of intent to gift | Affirmed: court credited Richard’s unrebutted testimony; property remained premarital under equitable division discretion |
| Denial of due process / new trial for lack of funds to hire counsel | Court’s refusal to release estate funds (and alleged misstatements by Richard) deprived Danielle of counsel and due process | Danielle received multiple releases of funds pretrial and is an attorney; no legally supported due-process claim shown | Affirmed: claim inadequately briefed and unsupported; no reversible due-process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jesperson v. Jesperson, 610 P.2d 326 (Utah 1980) (intent, not mere joint title, controls whether premarital property becomes marital)
- Bradford v. Bradford, 993 P.2d 887 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (transfer into joint tenancy is presumed a gift but presumption can be rebutted by evidence of intent)
- Reller v. Argenziano, 360 P.3d 768 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (voluntary unemployment/underemployment may bear on imputation and concealment of income)
- Spencer v. Utah State Bar, 293 P.3d 360 (Utah 2012) (bar admission rules discussed in context of recent practice requirement; court distinguishes bar-admission rules from employment capability)