*1 question that such title and rents consti- “significant tute assets” bring which
case within the holding of Kamas Securities Taylor,
Co. v. 119 Utah
(1950). I would reverse.
STEWART, J., concurs in
opinion DURHAM, LEA,
Joan Sena Bowers BOWERS,
Farrell D. Defendant Wootten, Fork,
Noall T. American Ivins, Fork, H. American for de- Grant fendant respondent.
DURHAM, Justice: judgment This is an from a modi- fying a divorce decree. We reverse because the di- the trial court erred in vorce decree in the of factual find- absence of a substantial in circumstanc- es. 29, 1974, a Divorce De- April default
cree granting respondent. Paragraph 7 of that decree provided as follows: hereby awarded as her separate property sole and the 1965 Chev- аutomobile, fur- rolet all of the household niture, furnishings, equip- fixtures and hereto and belonging *2 remarriage property real located at be sold on the the and home Trinnaman, Lehi Utah 1765 North Utah, more County, particularly and 23, 1975, appellant the filed a May On follows, to-wit: scribed as in which she stated that counter-affidavit chains chains Commencing 8 North 8.62 and rеspondent the was coherent alert 63%l/2%p° North East and 4.85 chains stipulation, when he the that she signed cor-
North 33¾° West
the Southwest
it to
times in the kitchen
read
him several
RIE, SLM;
5,
S,
Twp 5
thencе
ner of Sec.
home,
they
that
discussed each
of their
and
chains;
North 33°45' West 0.27
thence
said
paragraph in detail. She
that she
chains;
North 24¼° West 1.71
thence
him
understood the doсument
asked
if he
chains;
5.16
North 67° East
thence South
and he
the affirmative.
She
responded
23° East 1.98 chains South 67° West 5.12
original
that the
represented
stipu-
further
Area:
beginning.
chains to
1 acre.
lation and
was un-
them and did in fact
derstood
both of
by
that said
real
the event
home and
reflect
and that when the
sold,
agreement,
their
the
property are
from
quitclаim
deed was delivered to
the
equally
sale shall be divided
between the
that the
respondent it was understood
home
plaintiff and defendant after
the dis-
such time as she decided
hers until
charge of all costs of said sale.
sell it.
to
following
This
the
provision
Stipulation
Prop-
2,1975,
and
June
the district court entered
approval
court’s
On
erty
Agreement
following ruling:
which had been
the
Settlement
22,1974.
parties on March
executed
both
to amend the Decree
Defendant’s motion
Paragraph
Stipulation
Proper-
6 of the
and
The Cоurt did not
of Divorce is denied.
ty
Agreement contained the
Settlement
in the
Divorce reserve for fu-
Decree of
same
reference
provision with
to the home
the
аdjudication the matter of
inter-
ture
as
Paragraph
that
forth in
set
est of
and there
the
divorce decree.
that
allegation
has been no
extrinsic
any
fraud on
part
thе
22, 1974,
respondent
On
exe-
March
in which the
way affected the manner
appellant
quit-
cuted and delivered to the
adjudi-
was
parties interest
in the home
home and
claim dеed to the
real
ambiguity
cated.
is no
the De-
There
above, which deed was recorded
referred to
cree as
and
disposition
County
the Utah
Recorder.
knowledgе
pro-
had
13, 1975,
respondent
On
filed
May
reopen
to
vision and could have acted
provi-
court a motion to amend the
interlocutory period
matter
sions
Paragraph
7 of the divorce decree
pursuant
to Rule 60 U.R.C.R.
on
not
grounds
represented
that he was
ruling.
from that
was taken
counsel at the time the
was
9, 1980,
On
the same issue
signed,
ambigu-
itself
that
judge of the
brought
the same
dis-
before
ous
be modified to reflect a clear
arid should
and,
respondent
according
trict court by the
parties,
of the intent
interpretation
file, the
court de-
minute
equitable.
and that a modification would be
on this same issue.
clined to take evidence
The
affidavit in
of his
respondent’s
support
19,1981,
was brought
June
the mаtter
signed
at the
alleged
motion
time he
the third time
before the
court for
district
stipulation he was unable to read
and,
September
on the same issue
poor
to
eyesight
having any
and not
read-
the decree of di-
the court modified
time,
therefore,
ing glasses at
he
sold,
vorce,
based on the
ordering the home
had
rely
appellant
оn the
to read the
Fact:
following Finding of
Furthermore,
document
him.
he stated
Stipulation
had he been advised
counsel at
1. That at the time
time
signed
agreement,
governed
he
counsel
entered into which
Divorce, the
original
would have had the
and Decree in
provide
represented by
(citations
defendant was not
counsel
Id. at
omitted).
1250-51
drinking heavily
for ex-
findings
court’s
factual
respecting
periods
time,
tended
Court
grounds
of this
above,
finds
defendant believed
set
do not
forth
include either a
required
Stipulation
hold
changе of circumstances or a “compelling
for as long
as his minor children
Land,
reason”
the holding
*3
of Land v.
living in the
were
home with
but
Therefore,
supra.
the judgment of the trial
thereaftеr
the home would
sold and
be
court
stand and is
cannot
reversed.
equity divided
between them.
costs awarded.
It
is from that order that
is
C.J.,
OAKS, J.,
HALL,
concur.
taken.
Justice,
dissenting:
petition
On a
of a
I
I would
dissent.
remand the case to
requirement
divorce
threshold
supplement
court to
Findings
is a showing
change
for relief
of substantial
implicit
Fact since
in that court’s
ruling
parties
in the circumstances of the
occur
conclusion
there had been a materi-
ring
since
of the decree and not
change
al
of circumstances.
contemplated
in
decree itself. See Ha
When
trial court
petition
denied the
Haslam,
(1982);
slam v.
provisions pointed drawn, Fact were to with and when the great be resorted reluctance con- specifically stated therein compelling nothing reasons. cerning the absence of minor children
home. was it stated that the court Neither change
found a of circumstances. The find- lack of
ings only mention defendant’s
counsel, drinking and mistaken belief as
to the effect of the which he However, the house.
signed regarding
finding of circumstances
implicit ruling explained in the court’s This,
above. in view of the court’s denial of at an earlier time request
the defendant’s
when minor children were in the case compel simply me to remand the *4 augment the trial court for its
findings in order to reflect its full and
complete reasoning and basis for
the decree.
STEWART, J., concurs in the
opinion of Gustavson, Hansen,
Mark Robert B. S. City, Lake Salt HANSEN, Robert B. Plaintiff Coleman, Wilkinson, David L. Donald S. respon- Lake for defendant and Salt dent. WILKINSON, Dеfendant David L. HOWE, Justice: appeals from an order dismiss- complaint prejudice. employed attorney Plaintiff was as an Attorney General’s Office of the State
of Utah between November of 1968 and permanent December of 1976. He achieved under January career status in Act”, “Attorney General Career Service 67-5-6, U.C.A., 1953, et seq. codified at § Act). (hereafter Career Novem- Service for the of- successfully ber of 1976 he ran of Utah. He as- Attorney fice of General of 1977 and served January sumed office four-year Republican his full term. In the election of 1980 he was candidate primary re-election, by the but was defeated who also won in the November office as election and assumed