Attorney Diana J Huntsman's Legal Cases

Trusts

Anderton v. Boren, 2017 UT App 232

Dec 21, 2017

OUTCOME: The children of a decedent had standing to pursue claims related to a trust where the mere potential of removal as beneficiaries did not negate standing, but the mother and trustee were properly granted summary judgment on their claims of malfeasance.

Our firm helped defend a mother against an appeal by her children of a trust amendment. We were successful in establishing that the mother did nothing wrong. HOLDINGS: [1]-The children of a deceden ... t had standing to pursue claims related to a trust where the mere potential of removal as beneficiaries did not negate standing, and although trust amendment divested them of interest in a farm, the farm's management could have impacted the viability of other trust benefits to which they retained a beneficial interest; [2]-The district court properly struck the declaration of one of the children where it contained unsupported assertions of fact and opinions regarding the farm's finances that went beyond lay witness testimony, and nothing in it created an issue of material fact as to the claims of malfeasance against the trustee; [3]-The mother and trustee were properly granted summary judgment as the children failed to raise issues of fact as to the commingling of funds, or whether the trustee improperly used or mismanaged trust funds.

Alimony

Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, 2017 UT App 150.

Aug 17, 2017

OUTCOME: Case was remanded to the trial court to recalculate alimony taking into account gross v. net income; the impact of taxes on alimony; and the proper equalization of a shortfall of funds.

My firm was not involved with the trial of this court, but assisted in the appeal. We were partially successful and the case was remanded to the trial court for a re-determination of the amount of ali ... mony. Specifically, the Court found that the trial court should have used our client's net income, not her gross income; that the court should have considered the impact of taxes in determining alimony; and that the court should not have divided the couple's shortfall unequally, as it did. From the case: Relevant Holding: We have decided that the court may have erred by relying upon John's alimony expert's calculations in the way it did. In the alternative, we have determined the court's explanation of its equalization decision to be inadequate to support a conclusion on appeal that it was equitable. We also conclude that the court erred by using Heidi's gross income to calculate her needs while using John's net income to determine his ability to pay. On remand, the court may also consider, in its discretion, whether to allocate the tax consequences of its alimony award as a matter of equity.

Civil rights

Stoedter v. Gates, 704 Fed. Appx. 748 (10 Cir. App 2017)

Aug 03, 2017

OUTCOME: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that UPD police officers violated client's constitutional rights. On remand, the trial court awarded $261,000 in attorney's fees and costs.

I represented a client who went pheasant hunting with his son, returned the gun to his grandparents' home, then visited with his uncle on the front porch. Officers of the Unified Police Department rec ... eived a call indicating "a man entered a home with a gun." They approached the home with guns drawn, yelled at the men to get their hands in the air, made them lay fact down on the ground, and handcuffed them. The Trial Court found that the officers had no right to act as they did, based on the facts they were told by the caller and the facts they saw when they arrived. Officers may only seize a person if there is probable cause, or reasonable grounds for them to believe a crime has occurred or is about to occur. We were successful in proving that the facts in this case did not justify the officers' actions. The officers appealed the case to the Tench Circuit Court of Appeals, refusing to accept accountability. We were successful on appeal. The Tenth Circuit confirmed that the officers violated Stoedter's constitutional rights, and granted substantial attorney's fees for Stoedter having had to fight through the process. From the actual case: Holding: Where plaintiff sued two police officers under § 1983 and alleged they violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law for plaintiff because defendants seized him without reasonable suspicion when they ordered him to put his hands up and step off the porch; [2]-The officers were responding to a 911 call about a man with a gun, plaintiff did not visibly have a gun, and he made no effort to run from police; [3]-The district court properly rejected defendants' qualified immunity defense, because plaintiff's right to be free from detention without reasonable suspicion was a clearly-established right; [4]-The district court correctly amended the order to award plaintiff nominal damages.

Child custody

R.P. v. K.S.W., 2014 UT App 38

Feb 21, 2014

OUTCOME: Admitted biological father of a child had no standing to challenge paternity of the presumed father, who was the husband of the child's mother. Under Utah law, only the presumed father or the mother could challenge paternity while they remained married.

Family law cases are private, except when they are appealed, as this case was. At the trial court level, I represented a husband and wife who were fighting to save their marriage. I was successful in ... preventing the wife's ex-paramour from having visitation with a child born into the couple's marriage. The couple had tried to be reasonable in allowing visits, but the ex did everything in his power to make those visits uncomfortable and ruin the couple's marriage. I was successful at ending his involvement. The opposing side appealed. The Appellate Court entered an involved and interesting decision, ultimately upholding the trial court's ruling. From that decision: Holding: [1]-Because a husband and wife were married and a child was born during the marriage, the husband was the child's presumed father under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-15-204(1)(a), although the wife had acknowledged that another man was the child's biological father, had accepted child support from him, and had allowed him visitation; [2]-Once the presumption of paternity arose, it could only be rebutted pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-15-607, pursuant to § 78B-15-204(2); § 607 limited standing to challenge paternity to the presumed father and the mother, as long as there was no divorce; [3]-Because the husband had an unrebutted presumption of paternity, he was the legal father of the child under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-15-102(18); [4]-The common law analysis to standing to challenge paternity was preempted by the Utah Uniform Parentage Act (UUPA), Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-15-101 to -902.

Child abuse

Cammack-White v. Harbaugh, 2008 UT App 147

Apr 24, 2008

OUTCOME: Established that father did not abuse child. Obtained a $25,000 award of fees from mother for accusations found to be "without merit."

In this case, I represented a father fighting to preserve his rights to visit his young daughter. His ex wrongfully accused him of abusing her. We proved there was no abuse. As part of its ruling, ... the trial court awarded my client approx. $25,000 in attorney's fees under Rule 37(d) of the Utah Juvenile Court Rules. Rule 37(d) allows for fees if a party proves accusations of abuse are "without merit," meaning abuse "did not occur." The opposing side appealed the trial Court's ruling. On appeal, the Court clarified the factors for determining if allegations are "without merit," indicated that it appeared we had proven this in our case, but remanded the case for a direct more ruling on that question from the trial court. On remand, the trial court confirmed its finding that abuse did not occur, and confirmed it's award of fees.

Alimony

Appellate Case, And v. And

Mar 13, 2008

OUTCOME: Alimony reduced from $750 for 25 years, to zero ($0).

Most family law cases are private in Utah. The exceptions are those that are appealed. In this case, the trial court awarded $750/month in alimony for 25 years, based partially on side income a husba ... nd earned from cutting firewood. The man retained me to appeal the decision, which I did. I was successful, and convinced the appellate court that alimony had been miscalculated. The appellate court remanded (meaning they sent the case back to be reconsidered by the trial court). On remand, I was successful in convincing the trial court alimony was not appropriate at all. Holding from the case itself: Code Ann. § 78-45-7.5(4)(a) required that husband's gross income from self-employment be calculated by subtracting necessary expenses required for self-employment or business operation from gross receipts. There was no indication that trial court took such expenses into account. Absence of appropriate findings necessitated remand.

Divorce and separation

Hatanaka v. Hatanaka, 2003 Utah App. LEXIS 175

Jun 12, 2003

OUTCOME: Divorce case, defeated an appeal on procedural grounds.

Family law cases are private, unless an appeal is filed. This was a divorce case, in which my client won each issue. The opposing side appealed. We filed a motion to dismiss, based upon procedural i ... ssues. However, the results were so one-sided the ex-husband refused to comply. We took him to court a number of times to force him to pay, but ultimately settled for slightly more fair terms, in exchange for a midnight deadline for payment of support, with extremely stiff penalties for being late. Compromise was effective.

Alimony

Wilde v. Wilde, 2001 UT App 318

Oct 25, 2001

OUTCOME: Where wife was refused award of modified alimony retroactive to date of modification petition, court did not exceed its discretion by denying retroactive alimony, by finding wife had ability to contribute to her support, and by denying fees.

Assisted in successfully defending a client against an appeal of a ruling regarding alimony. On appeal, the wife had challenged the district court's refusal to award her modified alimony retroactive t ... o the date of her modification petition and it's refusal to award her prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals held that the amendment to Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10.6(2) of Utah's Divorce Statute made a substantive change in the law, and therefore the amended statute did not apply. The Court of Appeals also held that even if amended § 30-3-10.6(2) applied, it permitted the district court discretion to award modified alimony retroactively for the period following service of the modification pleading. Based on the totality of the record, the Court of Appeals concluded that: (1) the district court did not exceed its discretion in denying the wife's request for retroactive modified alimony; (2) the district court's finding that the wife had the ability to contribute to her support was not clearly erroneous; and (3) the wife failed to establish the reasonableness of her attorney fees and costs, and therefore, the district court did not exceed its discretion in denying attorney fees and costs incurred at trial.

Diana J Huntsman's Legal Cases (8)

Anderton v. Boren, 2017 UT App 232

Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, 2017 UT App 150.

Stoedter v. Gates, 704 Fed. Appx. 748 (10 Cir. App 2017)

R.P. v. K.S.W., 2014 UT App 38

Cammack-White v. Harbaugh, 2008 UT App 147

Appellate Case, And**** v. And****

Hatanaka v. Hatanaka, 2003 Utah App. LEXIS 175

Wilde v. Wilde, 2001 UT App 318

Appellate Case, And v. And