Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts consider trust assets in divorce property division? Hillam v. Hillam Explained
Summary
John Hillam transferred stock options worth $350,000 to an irrevocable trust in 2012 during marital difficulties. When the parties divorced, Tara challenged the validity of the trust and claimed John dissipated marital assets. The district court granted summary judgment that the trust was valid and ruled John had not dissipated assets.
Analysis
In Hillam v. Hillam, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when marital assets transferred to an irrevocable trust can be reached in divorce proceedings, providing important guidance on dissipation analysis and preservation of error requirements.
Background and Facts
During their marriage, John Hillam consulted with an attorney about creating a trust while experiencing marital difficulties. In 2012, he established an irrevocable trust and transferred $350,000 worth of stock options into it. The trust agreement named Tara as a beneficiary but included a provision that she would cease to be a beneficiary upon divorce. When John filed for divorce in 2017, Tara challenged both the trust’s validity and claimed John had dissipated marital assets by placing them in the trust.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether trust assets could be divided in the divorce through various legal theories, (2) whether John’s transfer constituted dissipation of marital assets, and (3) whether Tara was entitled to half of a separate stock payout John received in 2017.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed that the trust was valid and enforceable, finding two of Tara’s challenges unpreserved and rejecting a third on the merits. However, the court found error in the dissipation analysis. The district court incorrectly analyzed the “magnitude of depletion” factor by focusing on whether the stock options still existed rather than their depletion from the marital estate. The court also erred regarding “obstructive efforts” by requiring affirmative concealment rather than considering whether material omissions could constitute obstruction.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the critical importance of preservation of error in appellate practice. The court declined to address novel legal theories about creditor rights and public policy because they weren’t properly raised below. For dissipation claims, practitioners should focus on depletion of the marital estate as a whole, not just individual assets. The ruling also clarifies that courts have discretion in treating stock payouts as income versus assets when parties have previously agreed to such treatment.
Case Details
Case Name
Hillam v. Hillam
Citation
2024 UT App 102
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20220488-CA
Date Decided
July 18, 2024
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Remanded in part
Holding
A district court erred in its analysis of the magnitude and obstructive efforts factors in determining whether a spouse dissipated marital assets by transferring stock options to an irrevocable trust, requiring remand for reconsideration of the dissipation question.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and summary judgment; abuse of discretion for property division and dissipation determinations; clear error for factual findings
Practice Tip
When challenging asset transfers as dissipation, preserve all legal theories in district court filings and marshal evidence to support factual challenges on appeal.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.