What contributions justify awarding separate business property in Utah divorce cases? Jensen v. Jensen Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for awarding separate business property to a non-owner spouse in Jensen v. Jensen, emphasizing that traditional homemaking and childcare contributions alone are insufficient to justify such awards.

Background and Facts

During their 17-year marriage, Husband owned stock in A & D Contractors, a closely held corporation that increased in equity by $230,851. Wife served as the primary homemaker and caretaker of their child while working part-time as a beautician and massage therapist. The trial court awarded Wife one-half of the corporation’s increased equity, reasoning that she “contributed to such increase by taking upon herself the household responsibilities and care of the child.” The court also awarded Wife $12,562.50 in attorney fees.

Key Legal Issues

The central issues were whether Wife’s homemaking and childcare contributions justified an award of Husband’s separate business property appreciation, and whether the trial court made adequate findings regarding ownership and attorney fees. The case turned on the application of Mortensen v. Mortensen, which established that separate property may be awarded to the non-owner spouse where that spouse has “contributed to the enhancement, maintenance, or protection of that property” or in “extraordinary situations where equity so demands.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court’s award unsupported by adequate findings. The court distinguished cases like Dunn v. Dunn and Elman v. Elman, where spouses received awards for performing business-related services or assuming unusual responsibilities for property management. Here, Wife’s contributions were “vastly different in character and quantity” from those justifying awards in recent case law. The court emphasized that Wife “did not assist in running the business nor contribute in any way to its increase in equity.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Mortensen requires specific, business-related contributions to justify awarding separate property appreciation. Practitioners should document concrete ways a spouse contributed to business operations, maintenance, or protection—beyond traditional domestic duties. The court also reversed the attorney fees award for insufficient findings regarding financial need, ability to pay, and reasonableness of fees, underscoring the importance of comprehensive findings supporting all awards.