The Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision discussing the application of Utah's Homestead Exemption in a divorce action dividing property, reaffirming that such does not apply in an action between a husband and wife. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the husband was not entitle to a homestead exemption on the property in issue, or on the proceeds from its sale. The case is White v. White.#divorce #property #divorceproperty #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #marriage
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a new decision on this alimony issue. The main issue was that of the pre-divorce standard of living and the concept of equalization of the post-divorce standards of living rather than just going on the recipient's needs. The trial court erred in not establishing the base standard of living, instead going to simply the needs of the parties. The trial court's decision was vacated and the case remanded for the trial court to reassess its alimony award.The case is Rule v. Rule.
The Utah Court of Appeals has issued a new decision concerning the award of a premarital business interest that substantially appreciated in value during a twenty year marriage in a divorce. The husband held premarital business interests, the value of which approximately tripled during the marriage. The wife, in addition to being the home-maker, supported the husband's business efforts through performing various host duties in social settings to strengthen husband's relationships with his clientele.The interesting point is that this award was by way of a summary judgment. The trial court, on husband's motion for summary judgment, granted judgment for husband that his business interests were premarital, had not been commingled, and wife's assertions of her support did not rise to a level to show that she augmented or enhanced the value of husband's business interests.The case is Lindsey v. Lindsey.