White v. White
2017 UT App 140
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Dean and Julie White formed The White Empire, LLC and transferred a Lehi residential property to the LLC; they later divorced and the divorce decree awarded the LLC (and its interest in the property) to Dean, who became the sole member and lived in the home.
- Julie obtained post-divorce money judgments against Dean. She sought a charging order against Dean’s LLC membership interest to collect on those judgments.
- Dean filed a Homestead Exemption Declaration claiming the property as his primary residence and asserting a $30,000 exemption that would protect the sale proceeds from execution.
- Before the charging-order hearing the LLC sold the property and Dean (as sole member) received $8,621.30 in net proceeds; Julie moved to void the sale as fraudulent or to garnish the proceeds.
- The commissioner and district court found the sale fraudulent, rejected Dean’s homestead claim (because title was in the LLC and the statute protects an "individual"), denied Dean’s request for verification of service issues, and awarded attorney fees to Julie based on bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dean) | Defendant's Argument (Julie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dean could claim a homestead exemption in the property or sale proceeds when title was in the LLC | Dean: Occupancy as his primary personal residence suffices; title holder is irrelevant | Julie: LLC owned the property; exemption is for an "individual," not an entity; homestead cannot shield LLC-owned property or proceeds | Court: Denied; statute limits exemption to an "individual" with a legal interest in the property—LLC ownership (and lack of individual legal interest at time of sale) precludes exemption |
| Whether Dean’s bare possession (occupancy) created a sufficient interest to claim the homestead exemption | Dean: Possession/occupancy as primary residence gives rise to exemption even without title | Julie: Possession alone is insufficient absent a recognized legal interest (leasehold, equitable interest, purchase contract, etc.) | Court: Denied; occupancy alone, without a legally cognizable interest surviving to the time of sale, is insufficient to support the exemption |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by not requiring Julie to produce verification of service of certain pleadings | Dean: Court should have required proof of service and thus erred by not insisting on verification | Julie: No prejudice shown; court acted within discretion | Court: Denied relief; Dean did not demonstrate harm from alleged lack of verification, so no reversible abuse of discretion |
| Whether Dean (pro se) is entitled to attorney fees on appeal or to reverse the district court’s fee award to Julie | Dean: Requests fees and reversal of fees awarded to Julie | Julie: Requests appellate fees if she prevails | Court: Denied Dean’s fee request (pro se litigant not entitled to attorney fees); awarded appellate fees to Julie as prevailing party given fee award below based on bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- P.I.E. Emps. Fed. Credit Union v. Bass, 759 P.2d 1144 (Utah 1988) (homestead rights statutory, purpose to protect against execution and forced sale)
- Panagopulos v. Manning, 69 P.2d 614 (Utah 1937) (possession with a legal interest such as leasehold can support homestead claim)
- Stucki v. Ellis, 201 P.2d 486 (Utah 1949) (equitable/purchase-contract interest and occupancy can support exemption in sale proceeds)
- Houghton v. Miller, 118 P.3d 293 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (occupancy is a requirement for primary residence exemption—claimant must be a property owner)
- CFD Payson, LLC v. Christensen, 361 P.3d 145 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (LLC is distinct from members; membership interest does not itself give member an interest in company-owned real property)
- Wiles v. Wiles, 871 P.2d 1026 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (discussed by parties regarding homestead use in domestic proceedings)
- Osborne v. Osborne, 260 P.3d 202 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (pro se litigant not entitled to an award of attorney fees)