Liston v. Liston, 2011 UT
app 433, December 22, 2011
Husband appealed the Decree which found wife’s credit card
accounts and Husband investment accounts to be marital property. The trial
court further awarded wife a sum of money for her ½ interest in water rights
associated with the marital home. Husband Appealed.
Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court’s finding that Wife’s detailed and specific explanation that the
credit card expenses were marital expenses was more credible when compared to
Husband’s lack of explanation of the credit card expenses. Indeed, Husband’s testimony that he had no
idea of what expenses were on the Credit Cards displayed his ignorance on the
issue.
Husband had a sizeable investment account to which he added funds
that he claimed were from his mother.
The combined amounts were then placed in an account held solely in Wife’s
name, then the entire amount (including Wife’s investments) were transferred into
an account held in Husband’s deceased mother’s name. Upon distribution, the Court described how it
determined that Husband original investment in the account along with other
token investments and interest thereon was Husband’s separate property. The
remainder, including the portion that allegedly came from Husband’s mother, the
Court found to be marital. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court based on the trial court’s detailed
findings and reliance on the CPA report.
Husband argued that the water rights were resolved in the parties’
partial stipulation. As part of the stipulation
husband was awarded the marital home and water rights “appurtenant thereto.” An unchallenged expert testified that three
of the four shares were not appurtenant to the home, but could be sold separately. Court affirmed
the trial court based on the expert’s unchallenged testimony.
Posts
