In the case of Gerwe v. Gerwe, 2018 UT App. 75, the Utah Court of Appeals decided issues of: 1) setting aside of a postnuptial agreement, 2) division of a brokerage account, 3) division of debt, 4) division of personal property, and 5) child support and alimony.

Husband argued that the district court erred in setting aside a postnuptial agreement based on fraud. He argued that the court had not applied the clear and convincing evidentiary standard.

However, the Court of Appeals noted that the lower court does not necessarily need to state the evidentiary standard it was applying, as long as it in fact applies the correct standard.

The lower court had found that Husband fraudulently induced his Wife to sign the postnuptial agreement by telling her falsely that he planned to reconcile with her. Wife relied on this misrepresentation to her detriment, thus satisfying the elements of fraudulent inducement.

The lower court awarded Wife one-half of the value of the marital portion of a brokerage account, while not ordering her to share in the loan Husband claimed was used to fund the account.

The Court of Appeals upheld this determination, finding that there was no objective evidence showing the purported loan and how it was used. The Court also noted there is no fixed formula for dividing debts in a divorce and that the trial court is afforded broad discretion in allocating responsibility for marital debts.

The lower court awarded Wife one-half of the value of personal property in Husband’s possession. The court valued the personal property in Husband’s possession at $48,000, awarding Wife value of $24,000.

Husband objected to the trial court’s valuation of the personal property, but the Court found that it was well within the bounds of reasonableness.

Husband argued that the trial court had abused its discretion in using his current salary to determine child support and alimony, rather than his projected salary.

However, the Court noted that it was the Husband’s choice to accept a less lucrative job and questioned the timing of the decision, coinciding as it did with the divorce. The Court also noted that, even if Husband accepted the lower paying job, with anticipated salary increases he would be making a comparable salary within one year anyway.

This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.