Thorup v. Thorup
Thorup v. Thorup, 2024 UT App 93 (Harris, J.)
Family Law
A divorcing couple stipulated to an “informal custody trial” before a commissioner to resolve certain disputes about their marital home, which was gifted to Husband in 2004. At the conclusion of the informal trial, the commissioner ruled that much of the home’s value had been commingled into the marital estate and made a factual finding about the home’s value in 2004. Husband appealed the ruling, and the Utah Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding in part:
- The court’s conclusion that the entirety of the home’s appreciation had been commingled into the marital estate was an abuse of discretion. The court correctly determined the value of the home in 2004, but it did not correctly find that $150,000 of the home’s original value had been commingled into the marital estate.
- Practice tip: The standards of appellate review are not different in an “informal trial” than in a formal trial.
- Practice tip: When one spouse uses his or her separate property to facilitate a loan to the marital estate, the proceeds from that loan are used to benefit the marital estate, and the marital estate pays the loan back with marital funds, then the separate property used to facilitate the loan does not, by virtue of the loan, become commingled into the marital estate.