Barney v. Siddoway

----ooOoo----

Lee O. Barney,
Appellee and Cross-appellant,

v.

Jon D. Siddoway; and
Standard Tile, Inc.,

Appellants and Cross-appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990579-CA

F I L E D
June 29, 2000
  2000 UT App 198 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable David S. Young

Attorneys:
Evan A. Schmutz, Provo, for Appellants
Larry A. Kirkham, Taylorsville, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Orme.

ORME, Judge:

As the trial court astutely observed, the two parties in this case "dissolved [Standard Tile] like a partnership, they acted like a partnership and they just simply had different percentages of ownership." Therefore, the trial court acted properly in treating this case essentially like a partnership dissolution. See generally MacKay v. Hardy, 896 P.2d 626, 629 (Utah 1995) ("[I]t is the duty of the court to look to substance rather than to form.").

The dissolution of a partnership and distribution of its assets is a matter of equity. See Nupetco Assocs. v Jenkins, 669 P.2d 877, 883 (Utah 1983). In Utah, the resolution of equitable matters is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Salt Lake City v. Kartchner, 552 P.2d 136, 138-39 (Utah 1976); Martin v. Hickenlooper, 90 Utah 150, 59 P.2d 1139, 1143 (1936); Shields v. Harris, 934 P.2d 653, 655 (Utah Ct. App. 1997). In conducting our review, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court "merely because we might disagree with [it], but we will do so only when the evidence clearly preponderates against [its] findings." Stevens v. Gray, 123 Utah 395, 259 P.2d 889, 890 (1953). As the Nupetco court observed in the specific context of partnership dissolution, "because of its advantaged position we give considerable deference to [the trial court's] findings and judgment." 669 P.2d at 883 (emphasis added).

The dissolution in this case presented the trial court with a Gordian knot, which the court cut in a way that was equitable under all the circumstances. In light of the considerable deference given the trial court in structuring a dissolution, we cannot say that, taken as a whole, its decision was outside the scope of its sound discretion.

Affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge