Henshaw v. Henshaw
2012 UT App 56
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dee A. Henshaw challenges supplemental findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a supplemental decree from a divorce proceeding.
- Trial court classified eight acres as marital property and the original ranch as Wife’s half-interest, with a later order to sell the ranch and divide proceeds.
- Trial court also ordered Husband to remove personal property from the ranch within 30 days of the supplemental decree.
- Wife testified to her outside employment and contributions to ranch upkeep; Husband contested these factual findings regarding contributions and maintenance.
- Judge Anderson imposed Rule 11 sanctions against Husband for filing a disqualifying motion; Husband appealed.
- Appellate court reversed the sale order but affirmed other rulings, and remanded to address title status and sale implementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether eight acres are marital property despite the gift from Mother. | Husband | Husband | Eight acres correctly treated as marital property. |
| Whether Wife should receive a 50% equitable interest in the original ranch as an exception to separate property. | Husband | Husband | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Wife awarded 50% equitable interest. |
| Whether the court could order sale of the ranch when the property had already been sold. | Husband | Wife | Remand required to determine sale feasibility given title status and prior sale; sale order reversed. |
| Whether the order requiring removal of Husband's personal property was proper. | Husband | Wife | Order sustained; remand may adjust if necessary. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions against Husband were proper. | Wife | Husband | Rule 11 sanctions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Jensen, 2009 UT App 1 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (trial court has broad discretion in property division; presumption of 50/50 in marital property)
- Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304 (Utah 1988) (exceptional circumstances may warrant transferring separate property)
- Elman v. Elman, 2002 UT App 83 (Utah Ct. App. 2002) (equitable division can reach separate property where equity demands)
- Kunzler v. Kunzler, 2008 UT App 263 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (equitable considerations in property division)
- Pennington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 973 P.2d 932 (Utah 1998) (standards for reviewing sanctions and Rule 11 factors)