Jacobsen v. Jacobsen
2011 UT App 161
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wife and Husband married in 1997; contemplated divorce in 2001; Wife drafted a May 2001 Divorce Agreement after negotiations.
- Agreement allocated mortgage, housing costs, and equity disposition with conditions for distribution post-divorce and waived alimony.
- Husband paid mortgage, taxes, and insurance after execution; title remained in Wife's name until sale in 2006.
- Finances were separated in 2001; joint bank accounts split, each kept separate accounts, and Wife lived in Hong Kong 2003–2005.
- Residence sold in 2006; escrow funds held; court eventually entered a Decree in 2008; Wife appealed post-Decree motions.
- Utah Court of Appeals affirmed enforcement of the Agreement and related property distribution, including a credit to Husband for retirement of the mortgage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the Agreement (meeting of minds/conditions precedent) | Wife contends no meeting of minds and a failed condition precedent. | Jacobsen argues there was a meeting of the minds and no failed condition precedent. | Agreement enforceable; meeting of minds found; no failed condition precedent. |
| Credit to Husband for retiring the mortgage from separate funds | Wife argues retirement of the mortgage with Husband's separate funds was a gift to the marital estate. | Husband contends retirement was from his separate property and not a gift. | Trial court correctly credited Husband for using his separate funds to retire the mortgage. |
| Interest on escrowed sale proceeds | Wife argues the court erred in awarding interest on escrowed funds. | Husband contends findings support awarding interest to him. | Wife failed to preserve the issue for appeal; claim not addressed on merits. |
| Valuation date and use of 2000 values for personal property | Wife argues using 2000 values was erroneous and ignored updated declarations. | Husband asserts court properly valued property with stated rationale and evidence. | Court did not abuse discretion; used explained rationale for 2000 values. |
Key Cases Cited
- LD III, LLC v. BBRD, LC, 2009 UT App 301 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (meeting-of-minds standard is factual and reviewed for clear error)
- Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82 (Utah 2004) (fact-sensitive approach to contract-formation issues)
- Foster v. Montgomery, 2003 UT App 405 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (treats contract-interpretation questions as law with no deference to findings)
- Ashby v. Ashby, 2010 UT 7 (Utah 2010) (contracts between spouses enforceable if negotiated in good faith and not unduly constraining)
- Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304 (Utah 1988) (separate inheritances may be awarded to the acquiring spouse unless commingled changes boundary)
- Bradford v. Bradford, 1999 UT App 373 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (transfer of separate property to joint title can change character with intent)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 2008 UT App 11 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (property division in divorce aims for fair, equitable result; deference to trial court)
- Andrus v. Andrus, 169 P.3d 754 (Utah 2007) (guides valuation timing for marital estate; decree date is typical benchmark)