Overstreet v. Overstreet

Annotate this Case
Overstreet,  v. Overstreet IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Dennis Michael Overstreet,
Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Cindy Hodson Overstreet,
Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000538-CA

F I L E D
May 2, 2002 2002 UT App 138 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Stephen L. Henriod

Attorneys:
Steven M. Gubler, Kanab, for Appellant
Dennis Michael Overstreet, Salt Lake City, Appellee Pro Se -----

Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Orme.

BILLINGS, Associate Presiding Judge:

Appellant Cindy Hodson Overstreet (Wife) argues the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded an equitable interest in the marital home to Appellee Dennis Michael Overstreet (Husband). Specifically, Wife contends that because Husband had denied having any interest in the home in an earlier lawsuit with his prior wife, he should be estopped from receiving any equitable interest in this divorce.

While the trial court did find that Husband had committed perjury, it also found that Husband "performed labor and supplied materials which either restored value or enhanced value in" the home. Specifically, the court found that Husband "contributed construction skills and materials and provided labor from persons other than himself on the marital residence during the marriage, including refinishing the basement in the [marital] home." Therefore, "[a]s a result of his contributions to the marital home, [Husband] earned an equitable interest in that home."

We will not overturn a property distribution in a divorce case "'unless a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion is demonstrated.'" Bradford v. Bradford, 1999 UT App 373,¶12, 993 P.2d 887 (citation omitted). Because Husband contributed labor and materials enhancing the value of the marital home, we conclude it was not an abuse of discretion to award him an equitable interest. We therefore affirm.
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.