Court Opinion

ID: 9788813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:19:03.528015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:16.807047
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Judge
(dissenting):
{ 15 I believe the trial court did not err in determining the equity value of the property. Because the equity of the home was an issue from the beginning, the parties had adequate notice that it would be part of the litigation. See Berger v. Berger, 713 P.2d 695, 699 (Utah 1985) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion where value was an issue at trial and the court's valuation was based upon evidence presented and a suggested valuation method). In fact, Sanders made an attempt to present documentary market valuation evidence, which the trial court, in response to Lee's objection, deemed inadmissible hearsay. Sanders also attempted to testify regarding an appraisal performed in 1997; however, in response to a similar objection, the testimony was not allowed. Thereafter, Sanders made no further attempts to produce or present any additional evidence.1 Clearly, the issue was before the court and Sanders cannot now argue that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to have reached the issue.
116 Further, it is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to base its valuation of property solely on evidence presented by one party where the other party failed to provide contrary evidence. See Elman v. Elman, 2002 UT App 83, ¶32, 45 P.3d 176; see also Argyle v. Argyle, 688 P.2d 468, 470-71 (Utah 1984) (holding that the party objecting to the valuation method has the burden of offering further evidence). "Having failed to produce *1131such evidence, [Sanders] may not claim that the trial court erred in considering the information [supplied]." Argyle 688 P.2d at 470.
117 I would therefore affirm the trial court and find that the issue of valuation was clearly before the trial court and that the trial court did not err in determining the equity value based upon the evidence presented.

. The evidence admitted included the original mortgage balance, the mortgage balance at the time of separation, and a 1999 County Property Tax Valuation that was not relevant because of the time period it represented.