Court Opinion

ID: 9550157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:30:38.571629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:06.355661
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring and dissenting in part).
I concur except as to the parts of the opinion with respect to 1) costs of attachment and 2) the item of $3155.69, to which I dissent.
1) : It seems unreasonable to conclude that Lentz was a Utah resident since he had a permanent home in California, where his children lived; filed a sworn-to tax return in California, claiming residence there, — presumably paying his taxes there in Utah produced income; filed a similar Utah tax return claiming residence there, not in Utah; was absent from Utah from October 1969 until after the attachment issued against his property in Utah,' 'that he resided at Bullfrog during the summer business months, in his bwn trailer'home which conveniently was registered in California; and that he didn’t even bother to obtain a Utah driver’s license until' after the incident of the attachment proceedings. His highly self-serving statement that he intended to reside in Utah -seems to' bé as transparent as it is incredible.
*272' 2): The accounting testimony hardly was harmoniously consistent, one C.P.A.’s testimony' appearing equally impressive or unimpressive to a point where we may as well sharpen the old saw and employ it here as anyplace else, to the effect that if there is any believable evidence to support the trial court, we will affirm it, — which was done with respect to other disputatious evidence in this case.