Keiter v. Keiter, 2010 UT App. 169, (Utah Court of Appeals June 24, 2010).
In the Decree of Divorce, the trial court determined that a piece of separate real property was commingled with marital property and equitably distributed the entire piece of real property. Husband Appealed.
The piece of property was held as a portion of Husband’s defined benefit plan that he began contributing to before the marriage. During the marriage, Husband made several payments on the land. Husband failed to show the court where the money for these payments had come from. The Court found that a negative inference about missing documentation is to be drawn against the party who should have possession of the records. Because Husband failed to produce the records, Husband could not support his claim that the property was premarital and not subject to distribution.
Therefore, the Court affirmed the finding that the property was commingled. However, the Court found that the entire property was not subject to distribution and remanded the case for the trial court to distribute only the commingled portion, reserving the premarital portion to Husband.