Shayesteh v. Gabrielle D. (In re Wright)

1

2024 UT App 146

In the matter of the Estate of Sheila Anne Wright,

Ahmad Ray Shayesteh, Appellant, v. Gabrielle D. Anderson, Appellee.

Nos. 20220582-CA, 20220883-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

October 10, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Kent R Holmberg Nos. 214901690 213900751

Ahmad Ray Shayesteh, Appellant Pro Se

Matthew N. Evans, Jessica A. Ramirez, and Jacob G. Roberts Attorneys for Appellee

Judge Amy J. Oliver authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan M Harris and Ryan D. Tenney concurred.

OPINION

OLIVER, Judge:

¶1 Following the death of Sheila Anne Wright, Ahmad Ray Shayesteh asserted that he and Wright had been in an unsolemnized marriage and that he was therefore entitled to inherit her estate. Wright's sister, Gabrielle D. Anderson, on the other hand, asserted that she was the sole heir to whom Wright had left her estate by virtue of Wright's will and trust. After a bench trial on Shayesteh's Petition to Recognize a Relationship as a Marriage (the Marriage Case), the district court found that Shayesteh and Wright's relationship did not meet the statutory requirements for an unsolemnized marriage and that the relevant statute-Utah Code section 30-1-4.5^[1]-is not unconstitutionally vague. After a bench trial concerning the administration of Wright's estate (the Estate Case), the district court dismissed Shayesteh's claims against the estate for lack of standing, for violation of the statute of frauds, and for insufficient evidence. In separate appeals that we consider together in this opinion, Shayesteh challenges the district court's findings from both trials. For the reasons set forth below, we find no merit in either appeal and affirm the district court's rulings in both cases.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In July 2011, Wright and her husband created The Gary and Sheila Wright Trust (the Trust), which holds title to their house (the House) and other assets. In 2014, Wright's husband passed away, and the following year, Wright designated Anderson as the personal representative, trustee and beneficiary of the Trust.

¶3 In May 2018, Wright met Shayesteh. Two months later, he moved in with her. In January 2020, Wright made Shayesteh the sole beneficiary of her individual retirement account, listing his relationship to her as a "significant other."

¶4 In March 2021, Wright passed away. Shortly after her death, Shayesteh filed the Marriage Case, asking the court to establish the date of his marriage to Wright as the day he moved in with her. Meanwhile, in the Estate Case, the court appointed Anderson as the personal representative of Wright's estate. In that capacity, she gave Shayesteh written notice to vacate the House, but he refused.

¶5 The following month, Anderson, as the personal representative of Wright's estate (the Estate), filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Shayesteh to remove him from the House.^[2] The district court consolidated the unlawful detainer action with the Marriage Case and ordered Shayesteh to "immediately vacate" the House or post a $10,000 bond if he wished to stay there "on an interim basis until the trial" in the Marriage Case. The following month, Shayesteh filed a change of address with the court.

The Marriage Case Trial

¶6 In September 2021, the Marriage Case proceeded to a one-day, remote bench trial. When the first witness had trouble connecting to the virtual trial, the court stated, "I don't have any objection or any problem with [the witness] attending by phone. But if she's central to your case in any way, I have no way to assess-well, I have very little way to assess credibility without seeing her." Shayesteh's counsel responded, "I understand, Your Honor. I'd ask to just kind of do [your] best, and the Court will have to give it the appropriate weight." The court replied, "Okay." Shayesteh and Anderson were each represented by counsel, and neither party lodged any objections to the proceeding.

¶7 Shayesteh called four witnesses in his case-Wright's manicurist (Manicurist), two next-door neighbors, and a friend- and testified on his own behalf. Manicurist testified she knew Wright well, had never met Shayesteh, but understood that they loved each other and were cohabitating. Manicurist was not aware of any marriage ceremony between Wright and Shayesteh and stated that she and Wright were "good enough friends that if [Wright] were getting married or thinking about getting married, she would tell" her. Wright's neighbors testified they had socialized with Wright and Shayesteh several times. They described Shayesteh helping with household tasks, such as grocery shopping and yard maintenance. But they had never heard Wright say she was married to Shayesteh or planned to marry him. Wright's friend testified she had known Wright for twenty years and thought Wright sounded happy about her relationship with Shayesteh, but she had never heard Wright claim to be married to him.

¶8 Shayesteh testified that he and Wright had an "informal marriage ceremony" performed on August 3, 2018, by a murshid-a spiritual guide in Sufism-who came to the House to perform what Shayesteh called a "Sufi bond."^[3] When asked why the murshid was not testifying, Shayesteh claimed the murshid was "a very mystic character" who did not "want to be a part of it all." According to Shayesteh, Wright did not tell her friends and family they were married because "she was shy" but she would tell "people [they met] on the road" that he was her husband. On cross-examination, Shayesteh was questioned more specifically about his work history and admitted he had been released from prison in 2014 after serving over nineteen years. Shayesteh claimed he worked as a freelance writer but could only come up with the name of one entity that bought his work. He also conceded that he and Wright never obtained a marriage certificate. Shayesteh presented no receipts or physical evidence of money he claimed to have spent on home repairs or remodeling, and he confirmed that he had no joint bank account or property he jointly owned with Wright.

¶9 Anderson testified in her case-in-chief and called her son and daughter as witnesses. Anderson stated she was Wright's younger sister and the beneficiary and trustee of the Trust. Anderson testified she had never heard Wright mention getting married to Shayesteh. Anderson first heard of him when Wright described how she had "met a fellow, and he seemed to be hard on his luck," so she decided to "let him into her home to stay." Anderson's son testified he used to speak with his aunt about six to eight times a year, even after Wright had met Shayesteh, but he had never heard her mention being married to, or agreeing to marry, Shayesteh. Finally, Anderson's daughter testified that Wright had regularly sent her holiday cards signed by both Wright and her husband before he passed away and that she has never received a card with Shayesteh's name on it; instead, the cards were more recently signed with just Wright's name.

¶10 After trial, the district court issued a detailed oral ruling that was later memorialized into its written findings and conclusions. After setting forth the requirements of Utah's unsolemnized marriage statute (the Statute), see Utah Code § 30-1-4.5, the court ruled that Shayesteh "failed to provide sufficient evidence that he and [Wright] held themselves out as having a uniform general reputation as husband and wife" and that "there was no evidence presented of a written agreement of a marriage." The district court further explained that consent to enter into a marriage-like relationship "may be establish[ed] by evidence of certain circumstances in the parties' relationship such as maintenance of joint bank accounts and credit accounts," "filing of joint tax returns," or "speaking in the presence of third parties as being married." But since Shayesteh presented no evidence of any such means to prove consent, the district court concluded that "there [was] insufficient evidence to establish the parties had a legal and valid marriage under [the Statute]" and dismissed the case with prejudice.

¶11 Immediately after trial, Shayesteh-now representing himself-filed three motions: a motion to disqualify the judge, a motion to vacate Anderson's appointment as the personal representative, and a motion to reconsider. The district court declared all three to be "without merit," and it awarded attorney fees to Anderson because the motions were "filed in bad faith as a tactic being used only for the purpose of harassment or delay."

¶12 Undeterred, Shayesteh filed a motion for a new trial, alleging he was entitled to a new trial because of "extreme technical difficulties" during the trial, because he had "newly discovered material evidence" consisting of Wright's death certificate and a post-trial declaration from Manicurist, and because the district court's findings were based on insufficient evidence. The district court denied the motion, confirming it "was able to hear all parties, witnesses, testimony, and was able to judge their credibility" and noting there were "no objections to proceeding" or any "motion to continue the proceeding" to show concerns about testimony being taken remotely. The district court also concluded that "none of the evidence identified by Shayesteh is new evidence" since it was available to him at the time of trial, and that its findings were "supported by the evidence at trial."

The Estate Case Trial

¶13 In June 2022, the district court held a bench trial in the Estate Case to resolve Shayesteh's remaining claims. Shayesteh argued that Anderson had not established she was Wright's sister, claimed that the Estate owed him $18,200 for money he had purportedly loaned Wright, and claimed that he, not...