Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trust Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court hears arguments on tracing and valuation of trust assets on remand in Dahl v. Dahl
Summary
On remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals heard argument over whether the district court properly identified and valued trust assets for distribution to Kim Dahl, including disputes over commingling, traceability of premarital funds, discovery limits, dissipation claims and whether valuation should use a 2010 date or a post-remand/current valuation.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Dahl v. Dahl (No. 20240740), a remand-focused dispute about what trust property should be characterized as marital property and how it should be valued. Counsel for appellant Kim Dahl, Steve Christensen, said the Supreme Court directed the district court to identify trust assets that should be returned or credited to Ms. Dahl and argued the lower court improperly treated the task as too difficult because of alleged commingling and by restricting post-2010 discovery.
Christensen told the panel that an initial trust corpus included approximately $350,000 of separate (premarital) property and that substantial marital funds were later poured into the trust; he asked the court to require tracing and, if necessary, discovery to locate funds that left the trust. Respondent counsel (Ruslan Blaklock) countered that the record shows substantial production, including tens of thousands of pages and materials supplied to an expert (I. Bailey), and that the district court reasonably valued assets at the time of the divorce in applying controlling precedent.
The panel examined whether the remand’s language (allowing Ms. Dahl to withdraw her share after remand) implies a forward-looking valuation or whether the court should value the trust as of the date of divorce (2010). Judges also pressed both sides on traceability and the evidentiary record: testimony that certain stocks were sold and converted to cash raised questions about who bore the burden of proving whether separate assets remained traceable, and whether the trial judge abused discretion by limiting discovery. Counsel debated a $92,000 dissipation claim; appellant said testimony and documents supported it, while respondent said the record did not present that evidence properly at trial.
Both sides acknowledged complex factual record issues and differing views about the appropriate valuation date and discovery scope. The panel took the argument under advisement and said it will issue a written decision.
What happens next: the court will issue its opinion in writing after review of the record and argument.
