Case Information
*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐ Matter Estate Rayma ) OPINION
Lynnette Percell, deceased. )
____________________________________ ) Case No.
)
Diana Lynn Lohman, )
) F L E D Petitioner Appellee, ) (December 2012) )
v. )
)
Galen Headley, )
)
Respondent Appellant. )
‐‐‐‐‐
Seventh District, Monticello Department, Honorable Lyle R. Anderson
Attorneys: Christina R. Sloan, Moab, Appellant
Craig C. Halls, Blanding, Appellee ‐‐‐‐‐
Before Judges Orme, Davis, Thorne.
THORNE, Judge:
¶1 Galen appeals Order Motion Delivery Property determined property ordered pieces property Diana Lynn representative estate Rayma Lynnette Percell. We affirm.
BACKGROUND and Percell began dating 1991. Headley moved into Percell’s home
with her 1992, which home later conveyed into joint tenancy with Headley. Headley and Percell owned two properties jointly. Percell solely owned an RV park called the Cadillac Ranch RV Park (the Cadillac Ranch) and Headley solely owned a company, Juanco Construction.
¶3 In 1995, Headley picked out a used 1975 Massey Ferguson 180 tractor he Percell agreed used complete the construction the Cadillac Ranch. On November 29, 1995, Percell signed a retail purchase for tractor, lists Percell as owner tractor. Percell made payment $3,950 with a personal check and remaining $10,000 a cashier’s check. Percell paid taxes on tractor from 1995–1997. Percell personally use tractor spend any more money for general upkeep. Headley used both for work done at Cadillac Ranch and Juanco Construction. Headley paid for insurance for 1996, 1998, 1999, and taxes since 2002. December died. daughter, filed an application for informal probate appointed as representative March 2010. In February Lohman filed motion for delivery property. objected motion, claiming several listed items, including tractor. held hearing testified had made payments to believed checks gave her made reimburse money borrowed her Headley also testified paid insurance as repair maintenance costs. ruled belongs Percell estate. Thereafter, ordered Lohman. Headley appeals.
checks invoices some money tractor.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 Headley argues rebutted presumption of ownership created by bill of sale by presenting legally relevant of equitable ownership of that district court failed consider. “[W]hen reviewing questions of fact, we defer trial findings do set them aside unless clearly erroneous.” State v. Visser , 2001 ¶ 8, 31 P.3d 584.
ANALYSIS
¶6 Headley claims presented legally relevant of equitable sufficient rebut presumption ownership. Headley maintains Utah courts utilize nine factors determining equitable ownership. He sufficient each those erred by considering evidence. argues relevant factors, compiled various cases, follows: (1) possession; (2) agreement or intent purchase; (3) exclusive use; (4) payment value exchanged; (5) title application title, if applicable; (6) insurance application insurance; (7) control; (8) sale; (9) third ‐ party security interests. See Johnston v. Simpson , 621 P.2d 688 (Utah 1980); Dahl v. Prince , 230 P.2d (Utah 1951); Pacific Intermountain Express Co. v. State Tax Comm’n , 161 P.2d 359 (Utah 1945); Jackson v. James , 89 P.2d 235 (Utah 1939); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Grp. , P.2d 110 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) ; Lake Philgas Serv. v. Valley Bank & Trust Co. , 845 P.2d (Utah Ct. App. 1993). argues “did allow [Headley’s] testimony regarding fourteen exclusive possession, use, control—or $27,648.32 loan payments, repair, maintenance, insurance, taxes—to rebut created Bill Sale expenditure purchase price.” further court failed Percell’s relinquishment established by decision stop paying Percell’s consent allow use, repair, maintain insure after while failing do so herself, Headley’s belief ownership. support assertion above directs us two sections transcript. first transcript section
contains opposing counsel’s argument, Lohman’s counsel asked court to all but to find Lohman based on the existence sale. The second section comprises court’s oral ruling, in court explained that, in determining tractor, court could consider than writings express directives. Neither section, however, demonstrates that failed to consider all evidence. Instead, transcript shows that opposing counsel merely asked to consider interpret pieces favor ownership court’s oral ruling written demonstrate that considered weighed it differently than Headley. district oral ruling is follows:
[W]ith respect to tractor, . . . the— great weight is that initial, . . . expenditure was by . . . it was . . . use her ranch, her property. Now this—this is about what be fair. It is my responsibility to how good these people are, how well they treated . . . . . . or even what she would want, if she alive today. question I can only consider her desire extent they are expressed her will. Otherwise they irrelevant. I can only her intent with respect what . . . transactions made, made during her lifetime, though gave . . . several chances tell me he discussion . . . about somehow him acquiring share tractor, fact, he never say there was [at] any time when he discussed subject her, I’m forced conclude they never ever talked about him becoming owner. And if they never talked about him becoming owner, he’s not entitled become owner simply assuming he has become owner because his hard work because moneys fix it up, those things he may very have done simply because . . . using it so much his purposes ought responsible fix it claiming it his tax returns, getting some tax benefit that, so maybe ought pay something. I have—no idea why claimed it tax returns why spent of this money it. But what is absolutely clear is never agreed to sell it to him, and therefore find that
is property of the estate and must be delivered to the estate. Now
that’s only the actual items in the bill of sale. (Emphasis added.) Likewise, the in stated “[w]ith regard to the Tractor the greatest weight of the evidence establishes Rayma Percell bought the Tractor.” then found “the parties never talked about [Headley] being the owner,” and although Headley “may have spent substantial sums of money the maintenance the Tractor, . . . [that] does change establish ownership.” evidence this case is capable more than one interpretation.
evidence Headley’s fourteen exclusive possession, use, and control as the money to repair, maintain, and pay insurance and the tractor are which tend to demonstrate Headley’s equitable the That same however, is also consistent an arrangement to loan to the understanding pay the insurance upkeep the and be allowed to take any resulting tax deduction. When evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation, court, as fact finder, is consider evidence and has significant discretion to assign relative weight evidence before it. See Poll v. Poll , ¶ P.3d (“Although parties’ evidence and testimony may susceptible more than one interpretation trial court, as fact finder, is conflicting find facts, credibility witnesses.” (citations omitted)); see also id. (“In bench trial proceeding judge serves fact finder, has considerable discretion assign relative weight before it.” (citation internal quotation marks omitted)). court’s discretion “includes right minimize even disregard evidence.” Id. (citation internal quotation marks omitted).
¶10 Here, record supports determination that did rebut created sale. In opposition favor equitable there testimony sell gift that simply paid expense operation while using it. According Headley’s testimony, when purchased a *6 conversation they going buy Cadillac Ranch, but they did not discuss ownership tractor. further testified tractor belonged Cadillac Ranch sometime after its assumed entirely did not object. district weighed this all ownership evidence determined stronger evidence purchased did transfer its ownership Headley. adequately supports court’s interpretation evidence, such, within discretion rebutted presumption ownership. We affirm court’s requiring transfer representative estate.
CONCLUSION did he rebutted court, its
considerable discretion, considered weighed but determined stronger established purchased discuss, nor Headley. record evidence supports court’s interpretation this manner. Thus, we affirm order. ____________________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
‐‐‐‐‐
¶12 WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
____________________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge