Opinion ID: 1125681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sterling Ranch

Text: Arta's contention is that the ranch was part of her deceased husband's estate which came to her; and that the title always thereafter remained in her and her children. To the contrary: Plaintiff says that defendant Arta had promised him, and represented to him, that the title to the ranch had been transferred to him and her jointly, and that it was not necessary to pay the children anything for any interest therein. Nonetheless, the children were actually paid $5,000 out of the joint bank account; further, that plaintiff Walter had contributed many thousands of dollars for various improvements on the ranch, including a substantial addition to the home thereon; and that it had been considered as a joint asset of the parties in the settlement agreement of their 1962 divorce. The defendant has also raised the point that because of the statute of frauds any agreement by her to convey the Sterling Ranch would have had to be in writing. The effective rejoinder to this is that such a defense is not invokable to prevent the trial court in a proceeding in equity from considering the ranch and the proceeds thereof in adjusting the accounting between these parties; and this is particularly so here because the ranch had been sold before the accounting and what the court was really concerned with was the proceeds of the sale. We recognize the correctness of the defendant's assertion that under Section 9 of Article VIII, Utah Constitution, this court may review the facts in equity cases. Nevertheless, it is well established that we make allowance for the advantaged position of the trial judge in close proximity to the parties and the witnesses; and we do not disturb his findings and judgment merely because we might have viewed the matter differently, but would do so only if it appeared that the evidence clearly preponderates against them, or that he has so abused his discretion, or misapplied the law, that an injustice has resulted. [2] We are not persuaded that any such circumstance exists here. One further matter requires comment. During the pendency of this appeal counsel for the defendant have lodged with this court a purported Motion For A New Trial together with an affidavit in support thereof purporting to set forth matters relating to newly discovered evidence. We do not and could not properly take cognizance thereof. On Appeal to this court we review the judgments and orders appealed from on the basis of the record upon which the trial court acted, [3] and do not permit the supplementing of our record with matters not before the trial court. [4] Further, a motion for a new trial is not properly addressed to this court but to the trial court; and it must be filed within 10 days after the judgment or order appealed from. [5] Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff (respondent). CALLISTER, TUCKETT, and ELLETT, JJ., concur. HENRIOD, J., does not participate herein.