Burke v. Burke

Utah Supreme Court

Burke v. Burke

733 P.2d 498, 43 Utah Adv. Rep. 11, 1986 Utah LEXIS 884

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 3, 1986

Docket20404

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 733 P.2d 498 (Burke v. Burke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. Burke, 733 P.2d 498, 43 Utah Adv. Rep. 11, 1986 Utah LEXIS 884 (Utah 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from that portion of a divorce decree awarding real property which defendant claims was owned by his closely held corporation and was not a marital asset subject to distribution.

Defendant contends that the question before this Court does not sound in domestic relations but sounds in corporations. Without citing to the record he makes bare allegations in his brief that there were no factual disputes about ownership of the property in the corporation and of the observance of corporate formalities by the corporation. He then claims that the trial court’s ruling was inconsistent with the testimony given and exhibits reviewed at the trial in October of 1980. Defendant has requested no transcript of that hearing, and we are thus unable to review the factual matters raised by him. All we have is the order on the decree of divorce nunc pro tunc that contains the award of the property at issue here.

The burden is on the defendant to prove that the , evidence clearly preponderates against the findings he assails. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 527 P.2d 1359 (Utah 1974). “If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence, he shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.” Utah R.App.P. 11(e)(2). In the absence of a record which allows us to review the assigned errors, we must presume that the trial court’s ruling was founded upon admissible, competent, substantial evidence. Sawyers v. Sawyers, 558 P.2d 607 (Utah 1976); Mitchell v. Mitchell at 1361.

The judgment is affirmed.

DURHAM, J., does not participate herein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from that portion of a divorce decree awarding real property which defendant claims was owned by his closely held corporation and was not a marital asset subject to distribution.

Defendant contends that the question before this Court does not sound in domestic relations but sounds in corporations. Without citing to the record he makes bare allegations in his brief that there were no factual disputes about ownership of the property in the corporation and of the observance of corporate formalities by the corporation. He then claims that the trial court’s ruling was inconsistent with the testimony given and exhibits reviewed at the trial in October of 1980. Defendant has requested no transcript of that hearing, and we are thus unable to review the factual matters raised by him. All we have is the order on the decree of divorce nunc pro tunc that contains the award of the property at issue here.

The burden is on the defendant to prove that the , evidence clearly preponderates against the findings he assails. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 527 P.2d 1359 (Utah 1974). “If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by or is contrary to the evidence, he shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.” Utah R.App.P. 11(e)(2). In the absence of a record which allows us to review the assigned errors, we must presume that the trial court’s ruling was founded upon admissible, competent, substantial evidence. Sawyers v. Sawyers, 558 P.2d 607 (Utah 1976); Mitchell v. Mitchell at 1361.

The judgment is affirmed.

DURHAM, J., does not participate herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

733 P.2d 498, 43 Utah Adv. Rep. 11, 1986 Utah LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-burke-utah-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack