Karlsson v. Karlsson

Karlsson v. Karlsson

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Laura Karlsson nka Laura Johnson,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Kjell Karlsson,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030602-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 12, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 212

 

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department, 994401942

The Honorable Lynn W. Davis

Attorneys: Brook J. Sessions, Provo, for Appellant

Wendy J. Lems, Midvale, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

ORME, Judge:

    We have determined that "[t]he facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record[,] and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument." Utah R. App. P. 29(a)(3). Moreover, the issues presented are readily resolved under applicable law.

    Appellant Karlsson argues that the trial court erred in awarding primary physical custody of their child to Appellee Johnson. "In determining permanent physical custody of a minor child, trial judges are accorded broad discretion. Only where the trial court's judgment is so flagrantly unjust as to be an abuse of discretion, will [an appellate court] interpose its own judgment." Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209, 1214 (Utah 1996) (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

    While the trial court made several findings of fact that favor Karlsson's position, many of the findings supported the decision to award Johnson primary custody. We are persuaded that the trial court carefully weighed all the evidence before it and that its award of custody to Johnson was not "so flagrantly unjust as to be an abuse of discretion." Id. Therefore, we decline to reverse that aspect of the trial court's decision.

    Karlsson next contends that the trial court erred when it included goodwill as an element of the divisible marital property. Generally, "[g]ood will is properly subject to equitable distribution upon divorce." Gardner v. Gardner, 748 P.2d 1076, 1080 n.1 (Utah 1988). However, in the context of dividing the property of a professional sole practitioner in a divorce action, the Utah Supreme Court has held that because the goodwill of a sole practitioner is personal and "is nothing more than his or her reputation for competency," Sorensen v. Sorensen, 839 P.2d 774, 775 (Utah 1992), it would be inequitable to require a sole practitioner to pay the value ascribed to goodwill. See id. at 775-78.

    Karlsson argues that this case falls within the scope of Sorensen. Karlsson, however, has not demonstrated that the goodwill of the catering business is solely attributable to his personal, professional reputation. See id. at 775. Rather, the catering business was cofounded by the parties and both worked in the business. Thus, we see no problem in the award of a limited amount for the goodwill of the catering business.

    Affirmed.

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge