*1 LeBRETON, Plaintiff Dixie Roblek Respondent, v. LeBRETON,
Thomas Edward Defendant and Blackham, City, Don Lake for de- Salt appellant. fendant and City, for Vuyk, Thomas P. Salt Lake Supreme Court of Utah. plaintiff respondent. WILKINS, Justice: appeals from order of the District equally divided Court between real property in certain date of plaintiff and defendant their divorce. 28, 1969, April sued for di-
vorce. The entered into providing tion of the sub- division ject property and the same was approved Court. reads as follows: thereof house, be sold With it will home is remarriage her or when the for the minor longer needed sold and at which time the home will be as of the equally among will be divided stipulation that with the further principal have all her date of payment after the the costs of sale divorce before remaining then will equally. filed an affi- defendant June of cause to show support of an order
davit in not be sold why the house should according to proceeds therefrom distributed had of the decree. children the interim and the remarried in age majority. A had both reached April was held on equity District ordered that “by buy-out” the home be divided sale according to its value at the time specifically earlier. years divorce nine appeals. from this order that defendant appeal by defendant single claim on Court misconstrued is that *2 470 30-3-5, 1953, amended, divorce, and that as of the decree of Section
terms read, above-quoted the properly provides part: in relevant the equity of the as of mandates a division made, When a decree divorce is the (after subtracting principal time of the sale in relation to may court make such orders by plaintiff origi- the payments made after parties, property and and the decree). argues nal divorce and maintenance of the chil- the contending time of di- contrarily, dren, equitable. The court be vorce controls the date that this division continuing jurisdiction to make shall have shall occur. The difference such an inter- subsequent new changes such orders make of the pretation would respect support with to and mainte- the would be sub- proceeds going to defendant parties, custody of the nance stantial, has as the in the home been and children and their mainte- markedly dramatic in- enhanced nance, or the distribution during in the area crease in values necessary. be as shall reasonable past decade. Judge verbally stated at this course, ordinarily remand Of we would hearing: for to the District Court this matter Well, I have statements of heard the taking evidence of cir- purpose you you testify, that both would both cumstances, including intent if . you were to the stand take original but the at the para- to different of this a proce- a us that such record before discloses So, graph. . . . I think it would be here as there was no dure would useless testimony a standoff as far as the is evidence, prof- meaningful that was concerned . . but I think that . fered, hearing at the that would be 1978 there, wording with that “the in remand, in this probative. un- divorce,” I think of the date that case, hearing evidentiary usual for an got tip the I has to balance and think 30-3-5, findings where can be made on § talking that is what we are about. That present the basis of circumstances. equi- is what I hold it was the ... n ty as of the date of the divorce. further pro- for Reversed remanded Find- The District stated in its Court also opinion. ceedings consistent with this No hearing: ings and Conclusions in this costs awarded. ambiguous though finds that that meaning is decree CROCKETT, J., MAUGHAN and C. equity as of the divorce date of the would JJ., STEWART, concur. among be the value to HALL, (dissenting): Justice Additionally, attorney plaintiff, who respectfully I dissent. Conclusions, Findings, prepared the and De- action, My first concern is that cree in the noted evidentiary would for an initially opinion, in in remand conceded ambigui- hearing hearing determining in that purpose there was ty, attorney also—in necessary” light for defendant in what is “reasonable and acknowledged essence—in this 1978 parties.1 present circumstances interpretations. a basis for two sought below no such relief appeal. urge it on this does agree We to him entitled such I do for an evi- conclude that we should remand the narrow issue relief because view dentiary hearing purpose of deter- but as one in equity, not as one in necessary mining what is reasonable and now, Annotated, pursuant do Utah Code contract. jurisdiction U.C.A., 1953,
1. Pursuant Sec. 30-3-5. fundamental, subject to the discretion of the court in order for a jurisdiction, there court of to assume may require. It has justice ... relief grounds equitable must be generally passing loosely been stated claim for presented.2 Also the merit of a that the divorce court has no dependent upon a show- equitable relief is modify upon property a decree prejudi- ability prevented to have *3 cases, agreement. (Citing in- settlement litigant finds cial situation in which the Ettlinger Ettlinger, v. 3 Cal.2d cluding case, just oppo- In himself.3 the instant However, supra.) 44 P.2d site is true. Defendant chose to contract mean that the court does not does not rights property away certain of his application have on an equity. seek cannot now be heard to correctly to decide or incor- modification if matters I am constrained to note that upon the decree is based rectly whether are to be viewed as within the type agreement, settlement and is property court, any jurisdiction of the modification, subject or is based not stipulated with a di- litigant, once satisfied cove- upon alimony or allowance settlement, disenchanted vorce but becomes nants, subject and is to modification.” change because of a in market therewith values, down), appeal (up only need pertains to the confused My next concern give by the court to him a second chance the law of way interpretation majority opinion places of reformation. is not Such contracts and should not be the law of trial, At on the divorce decree. “equity” pertains as it to decrees of divorce mortgage that the parties were in accord property upon which divide plaintiff from and after payments by tions. were to be deducted the date of the divorce was to be from the house before it noteworthy
It is cites and, indeed, precedent holding its divided. the sole issue appears to none. While this Court provided there was whether their directly has not ruled the issue here equity as of the date of the a division of discussion, under in the case of Callister v. property divorce or as of the date clearly recognized Callister4 the Court present- Consequently, sold. the sole issue sanctity property settlements as distin- not the trial appeal is whether or by ed this guished alimony from settlements. In do- decree was interpretation court’s so, Hough v. the California case it was.6 proper. Hough5 following was was cited and the excerpted therefrom: incorporated in the decree by the court and payments “This does mean that ambiguity, plainly, and without agreements settlement provides for a division though incorporat- modified even of the divorce” house “as of the date (Citing They may ed in the decree. not. provides “that further cases.) But in such a situation by principal payment made have all of the underlying policy. same The set- before the her after the date rights be final tlement of should and then the costs of sale stability Sup- titles: in order to secure equally.” on other hand should will be divided port allowances any Am.Jur.2d, biguous,” I not of the Equity, am 2. 27 Sec. 19. ambiguity exists therein. Id., Sec. 1. judge assuming re- there the basis of the on solved it 4. 1 Utah 2d proffer included the before him which evidence party proof and the matter each 5. 26 Cal.2d left at rest. should be Although judge (perhaps referred the trial inadvertently) “am- to the decree of divorce as legal binding, stipulation formed a face, contract, its which should be clear on STATE law, in ac- as a matter of interpreted Respondent, its terms.7 Basic rules of cordance with v. of a written document such VALDEZ, Alex Robert that its that it be read so require “remaining consistent.8 The own terms are already necessarily equity” refers di- “equity at established Supreme Court Utah. Any clearly stated in the decree. vorce” 26, 1979. the liter- interpretation would distort al the decree. agreement reached
Admittedly, the *4 settling
the parties in their differences at appears granted their divorce' time since weighted it mortgage pay- her the return all
assures of the divorce
ments made after
plus one-half divorce; yet
the date of the it is not for the question
courts to wisdom of a contract hand, the other are not aware what matters they parties
were considered when compromise. their
very well have received other consideration prompted his such as con- alimony, support,
cession made in other property. the division of is clear and
unequivocal should therefore
subjected hind- reformation based
sight might appear as to what to be more
advantageous to one of the
present circumstances. judgment would affirm the of the trial
court. Potter, Utah, Fidelity Hartman v. Overson v. United States and Guar- anty,