Utah Court of Appeals Hears Family Estate Dispute Over Oral Agreement and Whether Threatened Suit Was Consideration

Summary

At oral argument in Mortensen v. Mortensen, counsel debated whether a trial court properly found an enforceable oral agreement to split estate proceeds when purported consideration consisted of foregoing litigation and the district court’s written findings did not state certain essential terms; the panel took the case under advisement.

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Court of Appeals on oral argument scrutinized whether a trial court properly found an oral agreement in which a sibling promised to split estate proceeds to avoid litigation, and whether the lower court’s findings gave enough factual detail to allow appellate review.

Clayton Preece, counsel for appellant Maine Mortensen, told the three-judge panel that the central issues are “whether the trial court erred in finding an oral agreement when consideration was unspoken, unwritten, and was not bargained for” and whether the district court omitted essential contract terms required for enforcement.

Justin James, counsel for appellees Matt and McKay Mortensen, countered that Judge Howell’s factual findings — including that Maine offered to split “liquid proceeds as well as any proceeds derived from real property” and that family members discussed and accepted…

Utah Court of Appeals Hears Family Estate Dispute Over Oral Agreement and Whether Threatened Suit Was Consideration

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading