Liston v. Liston
269 P.3d 169
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Husband Sergay Liston and Wife Annette Liston married May 20, 2002; both were 65 at marriage and had prior marriages.
- They separated around January 15, 2008 after five years eight months of marriage.
- During marriage they owned a marital home and subdivided a lot for profit; owned four Holliday Water Company shares tied to the home.
- Finances were kept separate; Husband had multiple investment accounts; Wife carried $30,500 credit card debt for family expenses.
- Divorce trial occurred June 24–25, 2010; the court took judicial notice of a prior divorce action; findings issued July 2, 2010, final decree July 15, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wife's $30,500 credit card debt is marital. | Liston contends the debt is not marital due to separate finances and lack of control over Wife's spending. | Liston argues the debt is not marital; Wife bears sole responsibility. | Court held debt is marital; equal share awarded. |
| Whether funds in Husband's investment accounts are marital property. | Liston argues funds were separate property; trial court mischaracterized them as marital. | Liston asserts the court properly traced commingling and marital funds; Wife entitled to half. | Court did not err; Wife awarded half of the marital funds. |
| Whether three Holliday Water Company shares were appurtenant to the marital property. | Liston claimed all four shares were appurtenant and passed with the home under the partial mediation agreement. | Liston contends all four shares passed; Wife disputes. | Three shares not appurtenant; not covered by the mediation; Wife entitled to half their value. |
| Whether the attorney-fee award was proper. | Liston argues the sanction amount and basis were improper given financial hardship. | Liston argues the trial court acted within its discretion to sanction conduct. | Court affirmed $5,000 attorney-fee sanction against Liston. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elman v. Elman, 45 P.3d 176 (Utah App 2002) (trial court’s property division reviewed for discretion and law application)
- Jensen v. Jensen, 197 P.3d 117 (Utah App 2008) (attorney-fee awards in divorce reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304 (Utah 1988) (commingling defined when property loses identity and traceability)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314 (Utah Ct.App 1990) (separate property may become marital through commingling)
- Bayles v. Bayles, 981 P.2d 403 (Utah App 1999) (binding doctrines in divorce proceedings; meeting of the minds required)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah App 2008) (marital property usually divided equally; discretion of trial court)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 169 P.3d 765 (Utah App 2007) (premarital assets; separate property rules and exceptions)