Opinion ID: 2518323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Propriety of the Equitable Distribution as a Whole

Text: ¶ 41 Parduhn attacks the equitable distribution as a whole by questioning the district court's balancing of facts and its alleged failure to consider other facts. He asks us to balance those facts de novo and to concoct a new equitable distribution in his favor. Because we have concluded that the facts found by the district court were not clearly erroneous, we need only determine whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the facts and equities as it did. See Hughes, 2004 UT 22 at ¶ 20, 89 P.3d 148. We agree with the district court's focus on the partners' intent and find the equitable distribution fair in all respects. ¶ 42 Parduhn claims, however, that Buchi's wife should not be entitled to a portion of the proceeds because she has unclean hands. According to Parduhn, Buchi's wife breached the fiduciary duty she owes to Buchi's estate as its personal representative by failing to articulate the estate's claim to the proceeds. The doctrine of unclean hands is recognized in Utah, see Hancock v. Luke, 52 Utah 142, 173 P. 137, 150 (1918); Hone v. Hone, 2004 UT App 241, ¶ 6, 95 P.3d 1221, but we have never held it to be an absolute bar to recovery. Indeed, a district court's application of the unclean hands doctrine is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. See Hone, 2004 UT App 241 at ¶ 9, 95 P.3d 1221 (For this reason, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that [the appellant] does not come with clean hands. (emphasis added)); see also McKeever v. Fiore, 78 Conn.App. 783, 829 A.2d 846, 852 (2003) (The application of the doctrine of unclean hands rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.). Here, Parduhn argued before the district court on remand that Buchi's wife had unclean hands because she had failed to articulate the estate's claim on the proceeds. Nevertheless, in rendering its equitable distribution, the district court noted that the estate was included in [t]he possible universe of recipients. It appears, then, that the district court considered Parduhn's unclean hands claim and rejected it. Given the district court's reasons for distributing the proceeds as it did, we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion in declining to invoke the unclean hands doctrine against Buchi's wife.