Attorney D. Grant Dickinson's Legal Cases

Family

Mota v. Mota

Sep 22, 2016

OUTCOME: Affirmed Trial Court

Respondent sought dismissal of protective order after two years. At the dismissal hearing, Petitioner argued that the court should consider severity of past abuse as a factor when deciding whether or ... not to dismiss a protective order and because the past abuse in this case included Respondent holding a gun to Petitioner and threatening her while she attempted to call 911, the district court held that the past abuse was so severe that the Protective Order should not be dismissed. Respondent appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed and found that severity of past abuse was an appropriate factor to consider and that it was properly considered in this case. https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Mota%20v.%20Mota20160922.pdf

Divorce and separation

Osborne v. Osborne

Feb 11, 2016

OUTCOME: Affirmed for Wife on all issues (Grant's Client)

Divorcing parties owned a home. The trial court based value of the home on the tax statements and the owing amount on Father's testimony. Father appealed the trial court's findings as to the valuatio ... n arguing the tax valuation is too low to be the basis of the court's finding. Husband also appealed the court's valuation of the divided personal property. The trial court averaged the parties' estimated values of the personal property and when it deviated from this practice, the trial court made additional findings as to the value. Husband appealed the trial court mechanism for valuing the personal property. Trial court also awarded Wife alimony. trial court found that Wife had need and while Husband had some ability to pay, he could not cover all of Wife's need and as such equalized the incomes of the parties. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the court's reliance on the tax valuation of the home was not clear error. It was further not clear error to fail to order an appraisal of the home as the trial court's basis for its valuation was within its discretion. The Court of Appeals did amend the amount owing on the home to correct a misunderstanding of the trial court in the amount owing at the time of trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's mechanism and findings in regards to the division of personal property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's calculation of alimony.

Juvenile law

L.G. v. State

Jul 26, 2013

OUTCOME: Court of Appeals Reversed the Trial Court's Termination of My Client's Parental Rights

I represented Mother. Mother had a criminal record and had previously been provided services by DCFS. At the time of trial, Mother was incarcerated and the Court determined it was inconvenient to pr ... ovide services to Mother. Mother’s parental rights were terminated. Mother appealed. Mother argued that she was entitled to services under U.C.A. 78A-6-312(25) which requires that the Court shall order services to incarcerated parents unless the providing of such services would be detrimental to the child. The Court of Appeals agreed with mother and ruled that even though the Court had made findings about how it was inconvenient and how mother had been provided services in the past and still resulted in the 2nd removal, it did not overcome the statutory requirement to make findings before denying the services. Because the Court failed make such findings and as a result the Court reversed this trial court’s termination of parental rights and remanded the case to the Court for further proceedings. JUDGE DAVIS Concurred in Decision Not in Result finding that Court had made sufficient findings to deny mother services. Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_at329081072613.pdf

D. Grant Dickinson's Legal Cases (3)

Mota v. Mota

Osborne v. Osborne

L.G. v. State