Lamb v. Lamb

545 P.3d 273

2024 UT App 16

Joseph Earl LAMB, Appellee,

v.Sonya Elizabeth LAMB, Appellant.

No. 20210787-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed February 8, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Robert P. Faust, No. 174904728

Mary Deiss Brown, Attorney for Appellant

Gregory G. Skordas, Salt Lake City, Gabriela Mena, and Allison R. Librett, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge David N. Mortensen authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan M. Harris and Amy J. Oliver concurred.

Opinion

MORTENSEN, Judge:

¶1 Joseph Earl and Sonya Elizabeth Lamb’s divorce was decided at a bench trial.¹ As relevant here, Joseph was awarded custody of their children, ownership of a family business, and half the equity of the marital home. Sonya now challenges the court’s custody determination and the award of the business. She also challenges the manner in which the court determined the equity in the marital home. We affirm the district court’s rulings in all aspects.

BACKGROUND²

¶2 Joseph and Sonya married in 2007 and separated in July 2017. We address separately each of the district court’s determinations with which Sonya takes issue.

The Custody of the Children

¶3 Joseph and Sonya have three children, all of whom were minors when they divorced in August 2021. In November 2017, at a hearing for temporary orders, Sonya’s counsel told the court that Sonya had been the children’s primary caregiver "until recently." Sonya also admitted that she was arrested in July 2017 and was facing charges for possession and use of drugs, but she asserted that she had "taken responsibility," had "stopped using drugs," was "sober and more than capable of caring for the children and continuing on as their primary caregiver," and had "been attending Narcotics Anonymous and Al-Anon meetings." Sonya asserted that Joseph had a "serious drug addiction problem." Joseph claimed that Sonya had vacated the marital home shortly before her arrest, and he revealed that he obtained a protective order against her. The court acknowledged the allegations both sides made against the other but noted that Joseph currently had the children in his care and was living in the marital home. The court then determined that Joseph should maintain "custody of the children on a temporary basis."

¶4 Apparently, the children remained in the temporary custody of Joseph until the parties’ divorce trial, where the court received the testimony of a "reunification therapist" (Family Therapist), who had been hired by the parties after the custody evaluator had been "unable to perform an evaluation due to the children spending less than minimum time" with Sonya.

¶5 Based on the testimony of Family Therapist, which we recount when relevant in our analysis below, the court found that "unification" between Sonya and the two older children was "lacking" because of acrimonious relationships. The court noted that Family Therapist had testified that progress in reunification therapy would "influence what possible custody" Sonya might have in the future relative to the older children. The court determined that it was "in the best interest of the children that reunification therapy" continue to allow Sonya the opportunity "to reunify her relationship with the children."

¶6 Accordingly, the court found that it was in the children’s best interest that Joseph be "awarded sole physical custody and final decision making authority," with both parties being awarded joint legal custody. With regard to the youngest child, the court awarded supervised parent-time to Sonya one night a week. The court awarded Sonya no parent-time with the older two children. The court noted that supervised parent-time for Sonya would "be flexible" and might "increase after the current reunification issues" and Sonya’s "medical issues" were addressed. The court also stated that Sonya’s "non-use of cannabis" needed to be verified because marijuana use was "a contributing factor" that brought on her mental health episodes.

The Business

¶7 During their union, the parties were financially supported, at least in part, by a business that distributed supplies to gas stations. During the divorce proceedings, Joseph maintained that he was in the process of purchasing the business from his father but that he did not have the money to pay for it. Joseph explained that he drew a salary for his work with the business. In contrast, Sonya maintained that she and Joseph agreed to buy the business in 2010 and that they completed paying off the business in 2016. Sonya claimed that she and Joseph signed a document "to take over the business" but that she did "not have the document." Sonya did produce a different document that explicitly stated the business was being sold only to Joseph.

¶8 The district court awarded the business to Joseph, along with all its debts and obligations. In addition, the court, apparently recognizing that the business was possibly still owned by Joseph’s father, ordered that any money Joseph borrowed against the marital home to purchase the business would "not be used to reduce the total equity in the home" so as to reduce Sonya’s share of the home’s value. In making this award to Joseph, the court was clear that it was basing its decision "on the testimony" provided by Joseph.

The Marital Home

¶9 Based on a Zillow estimate³ provided by Sonya, the court determined the value of the marital home to be $998,659, but the equity in the home was reduced by mortgages and liens on the property. Joseph testified that three mortgages, totaling $402,000, were on the property.⁴ And the home was additionally encumbered by eleven liens. Two of these liens, totaling $2,414, were attributed to Sonya and Joseph. The remaining nine, totaling $256,521, were tax liens and civil judgments incurred by the previous owner of the home.⁵

¶10 The court received evidence that when Joseph and Sonya purchased the home in November 2009, it was subject to some existing debt. Joseph testified as follows:

Counsel: "Was there anything particular about that purchase [of the home]?"

Joseph: "We didn’t have the credit or the means to get into a home at the time, so my brother is a real estate agent and he’s good friends with [the previous owner] and said, ‘Hey, this house is available. If you like it, I can probably get you into it.’ And so we took him up on that and (inaudible) that we had to take on (inaudible)."

Counsel: "So there were other debts on that house when you purchased it?"

Joseph: "Yes. ….I didn’t know about all of them at the time, but yes."

Counsel: "What are those debts?"

Joseph: "There’s a lot of tax liens from [the previous owner] throughout the years. There’s a couple of (inaudible) from Sonya and I, medical bills that weren't paid. …"

Counsel: "And have you paid off the tax liens? The liens on the house?"

Joseph: "No."

Thus, in a somewhat unusual arrangement, the parties appear to have purchased the home subject to certain liabilities, even if they did not know the precise extent of those liabilities. Presumably, these liabilities would have been offset by a reduction in the purchase price, making the home more affordable.

¶11 Adding the mortgages and liens together for an amount of $660,985, the court determined that equity in the home was $337,724. The court, ordered Joseph to pay Sonya $168,862 as her share of that equity.

¶12 Sonya appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶13 Sonya identifies multiple ways in which she believes the district court erred. But "[f]or the sake of brevity," we "consolidate these grounds" and "set out in the opinion only so much … as we deem necessary to a decision of the questions involved herein." Patterick v. Carbon Water Conservancy Dist., 106 Utah 55, 145 P.2d 503, 505 (1944), overruled on other grounds by Timpanogos Plan. & Water Mgmt. Agency v. Central Utah Water Conservancy Disk., 690 P.2d 562 (Utah 1984).

[1] ¶14 Sonya first contends that the district court abused its discretion in making custody and parent-time decisions because it lacked sufficient information to make those decisions. "We review custody determinations deferentially, and so long as the district court’s discretion is exercised within the confines of the legal standards we have set, and the facts and reasons for the decision are set forth fully in appropriate findings and conclusions, we will not disturb the resulting award." Kingston v. Kingston, 2022 UT 43, ¶ 20, 532 P.3d 958 (cleaned up).

[2] ¶ 15 Sonya next contends that the district court’s findings were "entirely inadequate to explain" its reasoning for awarding ownership of the business to Joseph. "We review the legal sufficiency of factual findings—that is, whether the trial court’s factual findings are sufficient to support its legal conclusions—under a correction-of-error standard, according no particular deference to the trial court." Brown v. Babbitt, 2015 UT App 161, ¶ 5, 353 P.3d 1262 (cleaned up).

[3] ¶16 Lastly, Sonya argues that the district court’s "procedures and decisions regarding the division of equity in the marital home were illogical and manifestly unjust." "Determining and assigning values to marital property is a matter for the trial court, and an appellate court, will not disturb those determinations absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion." Mintz v. Mintz, 2023 UT App 17, ¶ 12, 525 P.3d 534 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 531 P.3d 730 (Utah 2023).

ANALYSIS

I. A Note on Briefing

[4, 5] ¶17 Sonya’s briefing is plagued by significant deficiencies and does not comply with the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure for appropriate briefing. First, excluding the cases cited for the standards of review, Sonya cites only a single case in her opening brief, and she does so in a perfunctory fashion—making only a shallow attempt to explain its relevance to the issues. Sonya continues this trend in her reply brief, where she cites no cases at all. In this regard, she falls far short of appellate expectations. "A party may not simply point toward a pile...