OCR Text |
Show THE SALT LAKE TIMES Miscellaneous Notices Consult clerk of the District Court or the respective signers for further information. Purchase price payable in lawful money of the United States. Dated this 26th day of Janu- NOTICE OP TRUSTEES SALE The following described property will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder on the 23rd day of February, 1976, at 9:00 a.m. at the South Ground Level Entrance of the Courts Building at Salt Lake City, Utah, in the County of Salt Lake, by Richard L. Bird, Jr., Trustee, and Bennett Leasing Company, as Beneficiary, pursuant to two (2) Trust Deeds with Assignments of Rents, both dated the 27th day of January, 1972, and both securing a single obligation, or the same obligations, of Utility Systems, Inc., a corporation, to Bennett Leasing Com- pany, a corporation. Notices of Default were recorded September 24, 1975, as Entry No. 2745221 as to the property at 854 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, and more particularly described hereinafter; and No. 2745220 as to the property at 4708 South 5400 West, Kearns, Utah, also more described particularly hereinafter. This supersedes the earlier Notice of Sale. The Trustee will sell at public auction to the highest bidder in cash, payable in lawful money of the United States, at the time of sale, without warranty as to title, possession or encumbrance, first, the following described property at 854 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, Beginning at a point 51 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 3, Hat A, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence South 47 feet; thence West 165 feet; thence North 47 feet; thenc East 165 feet to the point of beginning. Together with a right of way over: Beginning 41 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 8, Block 3, Hat A, Salt Lake City Survey, and running thence South 10 feet; thence West 165 feet; thence North 10 feet; thence East 165 feet, to the point of beginning. And immediately thereafter the Trustee will sell in the same manner, on the same terms, and with the same limitations the property at 4708 South 5400 to-w- to-w- it: it: feet Beginning North 89 59' 30" West and 33 feet South 0 00' 30" West from the North Quarter comer of Section 12, Township 2 South, Range 2 West, Salt Lake Meridian, and running thence South 0 00' 30" West 219.1 feet to the centerline of a rail1319.48 road spur track; thence along said centerline North 59' 30" West 198.813 feet; thence leaving said track North 0 00' 30" East 219.1 feet; thence South 89 59' 30" East 198.813 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to a right of way for extension of 5400 West 89 Street over the Easterly 25 feet of the above described property. The sale or sales will be subject only to encumbrances of record prior to February 1, 1972, in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, and prior to Entry Nos. 2434888 and 2434887 DATED this 28th day of January, 1976. RICHARD L. BIRD, JR., Trustee 333 East Fourth South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (1-- 30 2-1- 3) NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE The following described property will be sold at publicataucthe tion to the highest bidder Lake County Courthouse in Salt Utah City, Salt Lake County, on Wednesday, the 25th day of of February, 1976, at the hour 12:00 oclock noon of said day: All of Lot 194, Block 84, Hoffman Heights No. 13, according to the official plat thereof. Utah Supreme Court Opinions ary, 1976. Roger J. McDonough Successor Trustee (1-- West, Kearns, Utah, Page Three FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1976 2-1- 30 ooO oo - - - - - 3) NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE The following described real property will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder at the south door of the second floor of the County Courthouse, 240 East 4th South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 25th day of January, 1976, at 11:00 oclock a.m. of said day: All of Lot 156 in RON-CLA- RE VILLAGE NO. 2, a subdivision of the City of Ogden, County of Weber, State of Utah, according to the official plat thereof. Commonly known as 708 East 1000 North, Ogden, Utah. The Trust Deed being foreclosed by these proceedings is dated May 1, 1974, was executed by RONALD P. D. and CAROLE HOULE, HOULE, husband and wife, being the present ovners. The purchase price is payable in lawful money of the United States. Dated this 29th day of January, 1976. PAUL M. HALLIDAY Successor Trustee 400 Executive Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone non-judic- ial 355-28- 86 (1-- 30 2-1- 3) NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE The following described real property will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder at the south door of the second floor of the County Courthouse, 240 East 4th South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 25th day of February, 1976, at 11:00 oclock a.m. of said day: All of Lot 197, WHITE CITY NO. 2, according to the official plat thereof. Commonly known as 792 East 9990 South, Sandy, Utah. The Trust Deed being foreclosed by these proceedings is dated May 21, 1974, was executed by J. MARIDEAN SMITH, a single woman, being the present owner. The purchase price is payable in lawful money of the United States Dated this 29th day of January, 1976. PAUL M. HALLIDAY Successor Trustee 400 Executive Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone non-judic- ial 355-28- 86 (1-- After cartful raviaw of all thi record, vi cannot any that lha trial cuurt aboard it a diac ration, and a further find that the findings of lha trial cuurl art wall within tha guidelines aatabliahad by our prior daciaiona. Tha finding) and dacraa of tha court below ara affirmed. No coala awarded. IN THE SUPREME COURT Or THE STATE OF UTAH 30 2-1- 3) NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE The following described real property will be sold at public Karyl I. McKaan, Plaintiff and Appellant. No. 13954 WE CONCUR: FILED December 31. 1111 v. Thomas F. Henri Hsnriod, Chief Justice M- - McKaan, Defendant and Raapoadanl. Allan E. Macham. Clark J. Allan Crockett, Justice TUCKETT. Juatna: m I, The trial court found that tha plaintiff and tha defendant had grounds for divorce and entered a decree awarding a divorce to each party. As a basis for reversal, plailaiff claims that the divorce should have been awarded to bar alone and that tha trial court faded to make an equitable distribution of the property of the marriage and that tha alimony and support money awarded to her are insufficient. v Tha parties warn married on April 3, 1941. Sin children warn bora as issue of the marriaga, two of which are dapandaat. Under tha terms of the decree entered la these proceedings, plaintiff was awarded the care and custody of tha minor children subject to reasonable rights of visitation by the defendant.1 Plaintiff was awarded tha use of tha homo of the parties, which the cot t ordered to he sold upon the plaintiffs remarriage, upon the plaintiffs removal from the home, or upon the last child's attaining her majority. Tha court also awarded to aach of the parties on o -- ha if of their savings in the amount lf of defendant's 1974 of 12,071. 50. The court also awarded to plaintiff bonus in the amount of $1, 317 1 lha 1954 Ford station wagon, tha 1972 Ford truck and camper, together wfth the household furniture and other personal items and clothing. The court awarded to the plaintiff tha sum of $500 par month as alimony and the sum of $150 per month per child as support for tha children. The plaintiff was not awarded attorneys' foes. Tha court awarded to the defendlf of his future lf of the equity in tha home at tha time it is sold, ant of tha savings, various items of personal property, and the lf bonuses, ratiremont fund accumulated in connection with hia employment, and certain insurance policies. 3) NOTICE OF TRUSTEES SALE The following described real property will be sold at public Utah has aligned itself with the it was held: latter cases. In ths case of Hendricks v, Hendricks, To affirm that a guilty spouse is never entitled to a divorce is a position difficult to apply to the facts of life. It is seldon, parhaps never, that any wholly innocent party aaeka a divorce against one who is wholly guilty. Awareness of this fact and the giving of attention to the social implications of divorcs has given rise to the various exceptions and limitations on the doctrine of recrimination. A realistic approach to it la indicated by the court In the case of Dearth v. Dearth wherein It concluded that where mutual delinquencies of husband and wife made further living together intolerable, a divorce should be granted and ths court was not called upon to balance such delinquencies but only to determine which party was least at fault in causing tha bad situation. This is based upon the doctrine of "comparative ractituds" which is oft on used and has been given tacit recognition by this court. Although some statutes specify that a divorcs may be granted to "the party not in fault' our statute wisely contains no such provision. Our policy has been to tabs consideration of tha practical exigencies of such situations, and In cases such as the instant ona, whers both ara at butt, approve tha granting of a divorce to the one least to blama. door-to-do- or We have carefully reviewed tha racord in this case and we conclude that the racord supports the court's finding that aach of tha parties were antilletnu a divotce. Tbs prior decisions of this court have not enunciated a rule that the proparty of a marriage must ha divided by soma formula nor has the court ruled that the wife Is entitled to a fixed perceatago of tha husband's income as alimony While recrimination is not necessarily an absolute bar to granting a divorce in or support mousy. This court has recognised the principle that the trial court is Utah, it has never been held that it would enable a trial court to grant to each guilty in wide net these and that discretion interfered a is entitled to discretion matters 77 See cases cited in 24 Am. Jur.2d, Divorce and too that trial court has abused this discret with unlees it appears from tha record Separation, Sec. 226. 2. 123 Utah 175. 256 P. 2d 366 (1953). 1. Knighton v. Knighton, 15 Utah 2d M, M P. id 91 ; Anderson v. Anderson, IS -- 22d 216, 422 P. 2d 1927 No. 13954 2. Wilson v. Wilson, 5 Utah 2d 79. 295 P. 2d 977. spouse a decree of divorce. It merely permits the Judge to compare the conduct of the spouses and award a decree of divorce against the one whose conduct was the principal cause of the intolerable condition into which the marital relationship had deteriorated. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH ooOoo Neither of the cases cited in footnote 1 of the main opinion was one where a decree had been granted to both parties. In the Knighton case the divorce was granted to tha defendant, while in the Anderson case the decree had baan awarded to the plaintiff. Luther H. Thomas, Plaintiff and Respondent, To award a decree of divorce to both parties makes about as much sense as would an operation to sever two Siamese twins where, after one twin had been cut loose, the surgeon said, "Wait a minute; I still must cut the other twin loose." Jos states have permitted dual divorces to be given, soma because of a state statute - others on the grounds of waiver by both parties or that the matter was not raised on appeal. No. 14034 v. Valley, be. , a Utah corpora-tlo- a; Glen Paterson; Osnega Silver Corporation, a Utah corporation; Second Doe and Third Doe, Defendants and Appellant. FILED January 7, 1976 Macham, Clark Allan A few The better holding seems to me to bs that unless one spouse is willing to try to save the marriage, no divorce should bs given. To permit both parties to get a divorce is to leave the marriage relationahip in tha hands of tha spouses and would compel the court to grant divorces whers both parties wish to break up the marriage. If one party would attempt to aave that marriaga, the other party might also rspaat of evil doings and thus the marriage remain intact to the benefit of society. It seems to me that courts are engaging in legislation when they give divorces contrary to the law as it has existed from time immemorial. I would remand the case with directions to the trial court to decide whose conduct was the principal cause of tha domestic discord and then to grant a divorce to the other spouse. 3. " Sse cases collected In the annotation in 13 A. L. R. Id beginning at p. 1365. ELLETT. Justlcei Luthsr H. Thomas built and owaad a marina at Joa'a Valley. He entered into a pr a -- Incorporation agreement to sell It to a group of men who proposed to organise a corporation which would operate It and other pro par rise Including a coal mlna and a co aerate batch plant. When the corporation waa farmed, It entered Into a conditional sales agreement with Mr, Thomas whereby the corporation was to asaumo and pay certain debts far which Mr. Thomas was liable and to pay him ' tha sum of addition thereto $22,000 on or haters September 1, 1973. the corporation agraad to issua to Mr. Thomas 3, 330,000 shares of Its stock with a par yalua of ona tenth cant par share. b No stack was aver Issued by tha corporation and no money ever paid to Mr. Thomas, and pursuant to the terms of tha contract, he this action to forfait and terminate the Interest of tha corporation In nod to the contract and to ths property described therein and to quiet title thereto against any and all persons claiming an Interest therein through the corporation. Ths corporation In the meantime had given to Glen Peterson a leans with option to buy the marina. Tha principal Issue involved In tha Inetant action was whether at the time of algnlng tha lease aad option agreement Mr. Peterson knew of ths existence of ths conditional sabs agreement and lha failure of the corporation to be la compliance with tha terms thereof. Ths trial court found that the corporation had not compiled with tha terms of ths salsa agrasmsnt and that Mr. Thomas was entitled to forfait and terminals Its Interest therein. Tha court farther found that Mr. Peterson, at all times material to the Issua herein, knew of tha contract and of the failure of tha corporation to ablda by Its terms. The evidence wna such as to Justify tha finding of lha trial court and ths Judgment rendered In favor of Mr. Thomas. Ths Judgment is therefore affirmed. Costs ars awarded to ths respondent, WE CONCUR! non-judic- ial 2-1- A number of states by reesnt decisions have held that recrimination need not be a bar to a divorce action but is a qualified or discretionary defense. Those cases hold that the trial court may consider the comparative rectitude of tha parties and award a divorce to the party whess conduct is less offensive and against the party whoae conduct is tha principal cause of the marital discord. The court found that the defendant was earning tbs sum of $1,200 per month after withholding and deductions and that hs customarily receives certain bonuses which are dependant on tha level of business carried an by his employer. Tha plaintiff had worked as a secretary during tha first two years of her marsaleslady for approximately three years. The riaga and as a plaintiff sustained an injury to bar left hand and wrist which interferes to soma extent with her ability to type. City, Utah. The Trust Deed being foreclosed by these proceedings is dated May 21, 1971, was executed by WAYNE CHRISTEN WHITE and MARILYN B. WHITE, husband and wife, being the present owners. The purchase price is payable in lawful money of the United 30 At common law a party who did not have clean hands could not expect a court of equity to hear hia complaints. So a party who was himself guilty of marital misconduct could not persuade a court of equity to grant him a divorce from a spouse who was also guilty of marital misconduct. This rule was called recriminatioa and is in fores and effect in many states at tha present time. ona-ha- Hazelhurst Drive, Salt Lake 86 I have no quarrel with the results of the main opinion except for the statement that each party was entitled to a divorce. one-ha- one-ha- T All of Lot 101 NO. 1, according to the official plat thereof. Commonly known as 5877 355-28- ELLETT, Justice; (Concurring and Dissenting) one-ha- auction to the highest bidder at the south door of the second floor of the County Courthouse, 240 East 4th South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 25th day of February, 1976, at 11:00 oclock a.m. of said day: HAZEL-HURS- States Dated this 29th day of January, 1976. PAUL M. HALLIDAY Successor Trustee 400 Executive Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (1-- Richard J. ldaughan. Justice lt Plaintiff inilialad tbasa proceedings, sacking a divorce from defend The defendant answered and filed a counter-claialleging that ha was entilin' to a divorce. ARer the case was heard and a decision rendered, the plaiatilt amend tha dacraa or, in tha alternative, for a new filed a motion to altar trial. The trial court declined to grant a now trial, and tha plaintiff appaala. F. Hear! Haarlod, Chief Justice No. -- 3- 13954 J, Allan Crockatt, Juatlca R. L. Tuckett, Juatlca Commonly known as 4261 South 2835 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84120. The TSrust Deed being fore- closed by these proceedings is dated June 27, 1973, was executed by DAVID W. RUSSO and SUE RUSSO, husband and wife, the present owners. The purchase price is payable in lawful money of the United States Dated this 28th day of Jannon-judic- ial auction to the highest bidder at the south door of the second floor of the County Courthouse, uary, 1976. 240 East 4th South Street, Salt Mr. PAUL M. HALLIDAY Lake City, Utah, on the 25th Successor Trustee 400 Executive Building day of February, 1976, at 11:00 a.m. of said day: 455 East Fourth South All of lot 34, SHORLAND Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt NO. 2, according to the ofTelephone: ficial plat thereof. (1-355-28- 86 30 2-1- 3) Richard J. Maughaa, Juatlca IRS Warns of Dishonest Preparers Taxpayers who have their returns prepared by someone else should seek an honest, ethical tax preparer, Roland V. Wise, District Director of Internal Revenue for Utah, said today. While most tax return preparers are extremely reputable, competent, and honest, Mr. Wise observed, Ma small percentage of preparers do a great disservice to the remainder of the profession by misrepresenting both themselves and the nature of the federal tax return. Choosing a tax return preparer is important because, no matter who fills out the return, the ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of a taxpayer's retura remains with the taxpayer. should be wary of trusting a preparer who hints that he or she has a special relationship with the IRS or has a special tie-i- n Taxpayers to IRS computers. |