Court of Appeals hears argument on whether $2.7 million injury settlement was commingled in Terry divorce

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Terry v. Terry over whether a $2,700,000 personal-injury settlement paid to spouses Jamie and Craig Terry should have been treated as separate property or as commingled marital property subject to an equal (or nearly equal) split.

Appellant counsel Mikayla Irvin told the court the district court erred by treating $1,894,000 of the settlement as Jamie’s separate pain-and-suffering award and then awarding Jamie only 16% of the overall $2.7 million. Irvin argued the settlement checks were paid jointly, deposited into the parties’ joint account, and that the record shows multiple indicia of intent and intertwining that support treating the funds as commingled marital property.

The central legal question presented at argument was twofold: (1) whether the funds were commingled under the Court of Appeals’ framework from Thorup v. Thorup (either by intent to make separate funds joint or by inextricable…