OPINION
T1 This appeal stems from a divorce between David Allen and Elizabeth Mueller and concerns the post-divorce use and disposition of David and Elizabeth's property in Riverton, Utah. Susan Allen, David's mother, was joined as a defendant because she was a real estate agent that dealt with the property. A jury found that David and Susan Allen, by renting it to the McCandless family, trespassed upon Elizabeth's right to occupy, possess, and use the property. The Al-lens now appeal portions of the jury's verdict. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
BACKGROUND
T2 While most of the pertinent facts are not in dispute, "'[oln appeal from a jury verdict, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to that verdict and recite the facts accordingly." State v. Allen,
T3 David Allen and Elizabeth Mueller were married in November of 1998. Approximately one year after they were married, they purchased a "fixer-upper" in Riverton, Utah, taking title as co-owners and each holding a one-half undivided interest in the home. During their marriage, they placed a first and second mortgage on the home and paid the monthly mortgage payments from a
T4 Approximately nine months before David and Elizabeth divorced, the couple had put their home up for sale. They retained David's mother, Susan Allen, a real estate agent, to sell their home. They signed a listing agreement securing Susan's services from April through September of 2001. No buyer was procured during that time and a second listing agreement was signed that expired March 22, 2002. Both listing agreements provided that the home was not available to rent.
15 Up until March 2002, prospective buyers had come by to look at the home, but not a single offer to purchase the home had been made. In early March of 2002, Susan showed the home to the McCandlesses, who, after inspecting the property, decided to purchase the home at a price that reflected its current state of repair-or more accurately, disrepair. The purchase was conditioned upon the McCandlesses' ability to secure a loan for the entire purchase price. When Elizabeth signed the earnest money agreement for the potential sale of the home to the McCandlesses, she expressed concern to Susan about the property, about her credit, and about the property going into foreclosure because she and David had not made a mortgage payment since December 2001. Elizabeth inquired about putting renters into the property if the McCandlesses' application for a loan was denied. Susan advised against renting the property at that time.
T6 The McCandlesses' loan application was in fact denied, and they did not then purchase the home. On April 5, 2002, however, David and the McCandlesses signed a residential rental agreement by which the McCandlesses rented the property for $1400 per month, provided that they could secure a loan with which to purchase the property within thirty days. Susan, who had prepared the residential rental agreement, faxed it to Elizabeth. Elizabeth did not sign the agreement, later testifying that she believed that putting renters into the property would hinder the sale of the home. Nonetheless, the McCandlesses moved into the home that same day, and David collected $1400 from them to cover April's rent. David subsequently applied $550 of April's rent to the mortgage lender to forestall commencement of foreclosure proceedings, but failed to allocate to Elizabeth her fair share of the remaining $850.
«T7 That same night, Elizabeth visited the property to ask the McCandlesses about their understanding of the rental agreement. On arriving at the property, Elizabeth approached Mr. McCandless and informed him that she had not consented to the rental agreement and therefore had not signed it. She did not, however, ask him to vacate the property. Over the course of the next few months, she visited the property several more times and at no time during those visits did she ask the McCandlesses to vacate.
18 On April 26, 2002, Elizabeth was presented with another earnest money agreement signed by the McCandlesses, which conditioned their purchase obligation upon bank approval of their loan application. Elizabeth signed this contract, later testifying that her "ultimate goal ... was to sell the property and save [her and David's] credit." A few weeks later, the McCandlesses learned their loan application was again denied, leaving them without the means to purchase the property.
T9 Although the McCandlesses continued to occupy the property beyond April of 2002, Elizabeth and David did not collect any rent from them during the next four months. During this entire time, Elizabeth did not ask the McCandlesses to vacate the property, nor did she indicate that she wanted to use or occupy the property. It was not until August 2002 that she made written demand
{10 On August 23, Elizabeth served the McCandlesses with a written notice to pay the delinquent rent or quit their possession of the property. The McCandlesses continued to remain in possession. In September of 2002, David collected $2800 in rent from the McCandlesses-the first rent collected since April. In the meanwhile, the McCandlesses had not signed another earnest money agreement or rental agreement, nor had Elizabeth attempted to find a realtor to relist the property for sale.
T11 On September 26, Elizabeth filed this action against David, Susan, and the McCandlesses alleging, among other things, that the Allens had trespassed upon her right to occupy, use, and possess the property by renting the property to the MceCand-lesses and that the Allens had tortiously interfered with her economic relations.
T12 In November 2002, David collected another $1400 in rent from the McCandless-es. David later testified that he did not pay any portion of the rent he collected in September and November to Elizabeth. The McCandlesses finally obtained a loan and purchased the property in December of 2002 pursuant to an earnest money agreement prepared by David. To effectuate the sale, Elizabeth executed and delivered a quit claim deed to David.
T13 In February 2008, David and Susan Allen filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the divorce court had continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over Elizabeth's claims against them. In May, the trial court ruled that the divorce court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter,. The Allens renewed their motion for partial summary judgment, which the court again denied. The case was then tried before a jury in January of 2004.
14 The jury found that both David and Susan intentionally interfered with Elizabeth's economic relations regarding the home, and awarded $8100 in compensatory damages against David and $0 in compensatory damages against Susan for the tortious interference. The jury also found that David and Susan had trespassed against Elizabeth's right to possession of the home by causing the McCandlesses to move into the home. On the trespass issue, the jury awarded compensatory damages against David and Susan Allen jointly and severally for $10,000. The jury further found that the McCandlesses had trespassed upon Elizabeth's right to occupy the home and that they had become unlawful detainees of the home. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $8,550, jointly and severally, against the McCandlesses. The special verdict of the jury on punitive damages awarded punitive damages of $5,000 against David and $30,000 against Susan.
4 15 The Allens now appeal. The McCand-lesses did not appeal the jury's verdict against them.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
116 The Allens argue that this matter never should have been brought as a separate lawsuit because Elizabeth's claims should have been raised in the prior divorce action. Because they were not, the Allens contend the claims should be barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. They argue that the trial court also erred in ruling that the divorce court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over Elizabeth's claims. Because "summary judgment involve[s] questions of law," we review it "for correctness and accord the district court's decision no deference." Houghton v. Department of Health,
T17 The Allens also argue that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on trespass. They contend that they were unable to commit trespass as a matter of law and, therefore, that the verdict and instructions to the jury were in error. "Whether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law which we review for cor
1 18 Finally, the Allens contend that much of the jury's verdiet was unsupported by the evidence and cannot stand as a matter of law. "'On appeal from a jury verdict, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to that verdict." Water & Energy Sys. Tech., Inc. v. Keil,
ANALYSIS
{ 19 We must first determine whether the trial court erred in denying the Allens' motion for partial summary judgment and in ruling that the divorce court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute, which concerns the disposition of a marital asset dealt with in the divorce decree. The answer to this question also largely resolves their res judicata argument.
A. Jurisdiction
120 The Allens first argue that the divorce court had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve all disputes between David Allen and Elizabeth regarding their marital property. Indeed, the statutory provision relevant to this argument gives the divorce court "continuing jurisdiction to make subsequent changes or new orders ... for the distribution of the [marital] property and obligations for debts as is reasonable and necessary." Utah Code Ann. $ 80-8-5(8) (1998). This provision ensures that the court can enforce its orders concerning the distribution of property and, when new cireumstances arise, the divorcee court has jurisdiction to modify a divorce decree if it deems it is "reasonable and necessary" to do so. Id. See Throckmorton v. Throckmorton,
T21 While it has been noted that "{the enforcement of a judgment for alimony or a division of property is normally a continuation of the original suit and therefore need not rest upon a new assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant," 2 Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 17.7, at 296 (2d ed.1987), it does not follow that one who prefers to bring an independent action to assert a claim arising from a divorce decree is not free to do so. Cf. Zent v. Zent,
122 Moreover, Elizabeth did not try to modify the divorcee decree. Rather, she brought claims against Susan Alien and the McCandlesses, who were not parties to the divorce, as well as against David Allen. The divorce decree simply ordered David and Elizabeth to sell the property "as soon as reasonably practicable." Regrettably, in retrospect, it did not order the home to be sold in a certain manner nor by a particular person. 1 The claims Elizabeth brought against David and Susan Allen were never addressed by the court in the divorce action, were not covered by the divorce decree, did not attempt to modify the decree, and involved defendants who were not parties to the divorce action. Thus, while seeking relief from the divorce court was surely an option available to Elizabeth, the divoree court did not have exclusive jurisdiction over this dispute.
B. Res Judicata
123 The Alleng' argument that the divorce decree was a final order, and therefore that Elizabeth's claims of trespass and interference with economic relations are barred by res judicata and collateral estop-
€24 The Allens contend that the divorce decree was a final judgment on the merits that resolved all issues regarding how the parties were to handle the sale of the marital property. On the contrary, the divorcee decree provisions were very vague regarding the sale of the marital property. As mentioned above, no judgment was made or directive given as to how the property should be sold or by whom it should be sold. Nor did the decree address any of the elements of trespass or interference with economic relations. Rather, the decree only ordered David and Elizabeth to sell the property "as soon as reasonably practicable." Thus, the decree cannot be considered a final judgment on the merits so as to bar Elizabeth's post-decree claims of trespass and interference with economic relations.
C. Trespass
1 25 The Allens next argue that, as a matter of law, neither of them could have trespassed upon Elizabeth's right to enjoy and possess the home. Thus, they argue that the jury's verdict, which is premised upon a finding of trespass by both David and Susan Allen, is in error.
126 Joint tenants each have the right to "free and unobstructed possession and enjoyment" of the jointly held property. Utah Oil Ref. Co. v. Leigh,
127 "Since each cotenant has a legal right to enter upon and enjoy the common property, trespass cannot ordinarily be maintained by one co-owner of real property against another for such acts as merely entering the property, or the like." Id. § 87 (footnotes omitted). An action for trespass, however, "may arise against a cotenant who has actually ousted another." Id. See also Gillmor v. Gillmor,
1 28 "Mere exclusive use of commonly held properties by one cotenant is not sufficient to establish an ouster." Gillmor,
129 Here, David exercised his right to lease the property to a third party by signing a rental agreement with the MeCand-lesses on April 5, 2002. Elizabeth argues, however, that by renting the home to the McCandlesses without her express permission, David trespassed upon her right to
T 30 Most importantly, David was not acting in a legal vacuum. On the contrary, there was a divorcee decree directing the parties to sell the property "as soon as reasonably practicable." Thus, both parties carried a responsibility to do what they could to get the home sold. David's decision to put the McCandlesses in the property, while admittedly somewhat desperate, was in furtherance of that directive. He signed an earnest money agreement for the potential sale of the home to the McCandlesses with the expectation that the McCandlesses' loan would be approved and that they would purchase the home. When the McCandlesses' first loan application was denied, David offered to let the McCandlesses rent the home, under the assumption that a future loan would be approved and the McCandlesses would eventually purchase the property.
131 Selling the home had proven to be difficult, and the McCandlesses appeared to be the only promising option for selling the home. David and Elizabeth had been trying to sell the home since April of 2001. Although prospective buyers had looked at the home, no other offer had been made on it. While the McCandlesses may not have been ideal buyers, they were the only prospective buyers interested enough in the home to make an offer on it.
1 32 According to the record, the home was not one many prospective buyers would even consider purchasing. The roof of the home was in major disrepair, the yard needed to be retained and landscaped, the ceiling had fallen into the kitchen from roof and water damages, and the sump pump had gone out. The record also indicates that the property would likely have sat vacant indefinitely had the McCandlesses not rented the home. In fact, Elizabeth had not produced any other buyers, relisted the home with a realtor or broker, or otherwise done anything to discharge her co-equal obligation to sell the home. David, for his part, was following the divorce decree's directive to sell the home "as soon as reasonably practicable." 3
T 33 In summary, David did not oust Elizabeth from the property or otherwise actually hinder her right to possess the property. Because David co-owned the home and because he and Elizabeth had been directed to sell the home, he had the right to put tenants in as part of his effort, ultimately successful, to sell the home. No evidence indicates that Elizabeth wanted to occupy or use the property herself. Rather, she merely disagreed with the way that David was selling the home. Renting the home to the McCand-
The Allens also argue that the trial court should not have instructed the jury on trespass in regard to Susan Allen. They argue that Susan, as a matter of law, could not have trespassed upon Elizabeth's rights to enjoy the property because David gave Susan valid consent to sell or rent the home to the McCandlesses and Elizabeth gave Susan valid consent to sell the home. Elizabeth argues, in contrast, that the trial court was correct in instructing the jury on the law of trespass as regards Susan because Susan wrongfully caused the MecCandlesses to occupy the property. We disagree that Susan wrongfully caused the McCandlesses to occupy the property.
135 Any involvement Susan had with the property and the McCandlesses was at least with the consent of David. "Conduct which would otherwise constitute a trespass is not a trespass if it is privileged. Such a privilege may be derived from the consent of the possessor." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158 emt. e (1965). See also Haycraft v. Adams,
1 86 Elizabeth argues that Susan nevertheless played a pivotal role in renting the home to the McCandlesses despite Elizabeth's objections, thereby trespassing on her rights in the property. Even if Susan played a pivotal role in renting the home, she did so with David's consent and thus did not perpetrate a trespass. Cf. Haycraft,
137 As a matter of law, then, Susan Allen did not interfere with Elizabeth's rights to occupy the home or otherwise trespass on her interest therein. Any dealings Susan had with the McCandlesses were with the consent of either one or more of the co-owners of the property. Thus, the trial court should not have instructed the jury on the trespass claim against Susan, and we reverse the jury's improper verdict and resulting award of damages premised on that theory. 4
188 The Allens finally argue that the jury's verdict regarding punitive damages was so unsupported by the evidence that it cannot stand, as a matter of law. 5 We agree.
(89 Under Utah law, punitive damages can be awarded only if "it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the acts or omissions of the tortfeasor are the result of willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others." Utah Code Ann. § 78-18-1(1)(a) (Supp.2005). See Mahana v. Onyx Acceptance Corp.,
1 40 David, with Susan Allen's help, rented the home to the McCandlesses with the intention of getting the home sold. Although the McCandlesses were delinquent in their rental payments and their loan applications were denied multiple times, they were the only persons to make an offer on the home during the entire time it was up for sale. As previously discussed, David's choice was either to let the home sit vacant or to put renters in it. But for the efforts of David and Susan to put the McCandlesses in the property, David and Elizabeth would have been liable for a deficiency on the property following its foreclosure and would have owed property taxes and utility charges as well. In addition, they would have suffered considerable damage to their credit rating-a particular worry to Elizabeth. In fact, Elizabeth is in a much better position now than she would have been had the McCandlesses been kept out of the property.
$41 It could be argued that the Allens should have found a better buyer for the home. As noted above, however, no other buyers had expressed serious interest in the property, which was hardly a showplace. Elizabeth never found a better buyer. She testified that her ultimate goal was to get the property sold and to save her credit. All of this was accomplished through the efforts of David and Susan Allen, culminating in the sale of the home to the McCandlesses. We fail to see how their efforts constituted "willful and malicious or intentionally fraudulent conduct, or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard of, the rights of others." Utah Code Ann. § 78-18-l(l)(a). We therefore vacate the jury's special verdict awarding Elizabeth punitive damages as against the Allens.
CONCLUSION
€ 42 The court responsible for the divorce proceeding did not have exelusive jurisdiction over the claims Elizabeth brought against David and Susan Allen. Nor were those claims barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny the Allens' motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court erred, however, in instructing the jury on trespass. As a matter of law, there was no triable question of trespass presented by the evidence. Therefore, we vacate the jury's verdict and award of damages as it relates to a theory of trespass by Susan and David, as well as the jury's special verdict awarding Elizabeth punitive damages. We do, however, affirm the jury's verdict and
€ 483 WE CONCUR: JAMES Z. DAVIS and PAMELA T. GREENWOOD, Judges.
Notes
. - Only two other provisions in the divorce decree specifically address the home. One gives a physical description of the property and the other describes how the proceeds of the sale should be distributed.
. Although Elizabeth's attorney, on behalf of Elizabeth, sent the McCandlesses written notice to pay delinquent rent or quit possession, the McCandlesses' decision to remain in the property without paying all the rent they owed does not constitute trespass on the part of David or Susan Allen. Rather, this only goes to whether the McCandlesses were unlawful detainees of the property, subject to eviction.
. Elizabeth also argues that David could not bind her to the rental agreement without her consent. This is true enough. See Williams v. Singleton,
. Elizabeth also argues that Susan Allen should not have encouraged or helped David to sell the home to the McCandlesses when she knew that the McCandlesses had a poor credit rating and likely would not be able to obtain a loan. While such encouragement from one's mother and real estate agent would not likely be actionable in any event, this argument has no merit given that the McCandlesses did eventually obtain a loan and did purchase the home some ten months after first looking at it.
Elizabeth additionally complains that the only reason the McCandlesses were eventually extended a loan was because the Allens represented the
. Although the Allens' statement of the issues seeks a review of the jury's entire verdict, which would include tortious interference with economic relations and the jury's corresponding award of compensatory damages for the tortious interference, their actual argument is directed exclusively at the award of punitive damages. The award of compensatory damages for interference with economic relations is not meaningfully challenged on appeal. Thus, we limit our analysis to the issue of punitive damages as ""we are 'not a depository in which [a party] may dump the burden of argument and research."" Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Ctr., Inc.,