Porenta v. Porenta, 2017 Utah LEXIS 180

Background

Patricia (Wife) and Robert (Husband) owned the marital home as joint tenants; Wife filed for divorce in 2005 and property division was contested.
While the divorce was pending, Husband executed a quitclaim transferring nearly all his interest in the home to his mother (Louise, Mother); Wife did not learn of the transfer until 2008.
Husband died in September 2008 while the divorce was still pending; the divorce was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and Wife later sued Mother under the Utah Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) to set aside the transfer and recover the home.
The trial court found Husband’s transfer to Mother fraudulent under UFTA, found Mother’s subsequent transfer to Diamond Fork (and related conduct) in bad faith, awarded the home to Wife, and awarded attorney fees for misconduct; Mother appealed.
On appeal Mother argued (1) any debtor-creditor relationship ended with Husband’s death so Wife lacked a UFTA claim when she sued, and (2) UFTA only authorizes monetary relief (not revesting title). The Supreme Court affirmed in part, remanded limited issues, and awarded double costs to Wife.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Porenta)	Defendant's Argument (Louise)	Held
1) Must a debtor-creditor relationship exist at the time a UFTA claim is filed; did Husband’s death extinguish it?	Wife: Her claim to the marital estate (including preservation of the joint tenancy) arose on filing for divorce and survived such that a claim existed when she filed the UFTA action (and any surviving claim is chargeable to Husband’s estate).	Mother: Husband’s death abated the divorce and extinguished any claims; therefore no present "claim" (no creditor) existed when Wife filed the UFTA suit.	Court: UFTA requires a present debtor-creditor relationship when suit is filed. Because Mother failed to adequately brief and preserve challenge to whether Wife’s property claim abated or was barred against the estate, the court affirmed that a debtor-creditor relationship existed (Wife’s claim attached to Husband’s estate).
2) Remedies under UFTA — may a court avoid the transfer and return title, or is relief limited to monetary judgment?	Wife: UFTA permits avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim (i.e., setting aside the deed and revesting title).	Mother: The amended UFTA limits relief to a money judgment equal to the asset’s value or amount necessary to satisfy the claim.	Court: The statute authorizes avoidance of the transfer (25-6-8(1)(a)) and gives the court discretion (25-6-9(2) allows judgment for value or amount). The trial court did not err in ordering revesting of title in principle, but remand required to determine current title status and whether any good-faith subsequent transfers limit equitable relief.
3) Sanctions / appellate fees — was Mother’s appeal improper so as to warrant costs/fees?	Mother: Appeal is non-frivolous and brought in good faith.	Wife: Appeal continues Mother’s delay tactics and merits sanctions under Utah R. App. P. 33 (frivolous or taken for delay).	Court: Appeal not frivolous but taken for improper delay given Mother’s litigation conduct; awarded Wife double costs on appeal (not attorney fees) and remanded for calculation.

Key Cases Cited

In re Harper's Estate, 265 P.2d 1005 (Utah 1954) (court held property-right determinations by divorce decree do not abate on death of a spouse)
Daly v. Daly, 533 P.2d 884 (Utah 1975) (court statement that decrees become ineffective on death; treated by majority here as dictum)
Nelson v. Davis, 592 P.2d 594 (Utah 1979) (statement that divorce action abates on death and property rights revert to pre-filing status; characterized here as dicta)
In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969 (Utah 1996) (discusses effect of divorce-era restraints on transfers and whether property is insulated from divorce court jurisdiction)
Rupp v. Moffo, 358 P.3d 1060 (Utah 2015) (bankruptcy trustee may sue transferee under fraudulent-transfer law even when action against debtor is unavailable)