Divorce cases often involve complex disputes over property division, alimony, and attorney fees, and the recent Utah Court of Appeals decision in Krajeski v. Krajeski (2025 UT App 19) is a prime example. This case offers critical insights for anyone navigating a divorce in Utah, particularly when significant premarital assets are at stake. At Ellsworth Law Firm, we understand the nuances of Utah divorce law and are here to guide you through these challenges. Let’s break down the key takeaways from this case as to the division of property and what they mean for you.
Case Background: A Marriage with Significant Assets
The Krajeskis married in 2010, each bringing substantial premarital assets to the union. Husband owned two businesses, Park City Design Coalition and DJK Properties, along with various investment accounts and real estate. Wife owned a home in Park City and another in St. George. After their 2019 separation, disputes arose over whether Husband’s assets had become marital property, the amount of alimony Wife should receive, and attorney fee awards. The district court’s rulings favored Wife, but Husband appealed, leading to a significant reversal by the Utah Court of Appeals.
Key Issue 1: Property Division and Commingling
One of the central disputes was whether Husband’s premarital assets, including business accounts and real estate, had become marital property through “commingling.” In Utah, marital property is typically divided equally, while separate property (e.g., premarital assets) remains with its owner unless it’s commingled to the point of losing its separate identity.
The district court ruled that several of Husband’s accounts and properties were marital because:
-
Funds from his business, DJK Properties, were used for marital expenses.
-
Some accounts received deposits from joint tax refunds or business distributions.
-
Real estate, like the Glenwild lot, was purchased with funds from the sale of a jointly financed property.
The Court of Appeals overturned these rulings, finding that the district court misapplied Utah law. It clarified that:
-
Using separate property for marital expenses doesn’t make it marital. Husband’s business distributions, treated as passive income, didn’t transform his accounts into marital assets.
-
Commingling requires untraceable mixing. The court found that Husband’s assets were traceable to his premarital holdings, so they retained their separate character.
-
Evidence matters. The district court relied on unadmitted evidence (e.g., a declaration not presented at trial), which was improper.
Contact Ellsworth Law Firm for Expert Utah Divorce Representation
If you have significant premarital assets, proper documentation and legal guidance are crucial to protect them during a divorce. At Ellsworth Law Firm, our experienced Utah family law attorneys can help you trace and preserve your separate property. Whether you’re facing disputes over property division, alimony, or attorney fees, the Krajeski case shows how critical it is to have knowledgeable legal counsel. At Ellsworth Law Firm, we provide personalized, strategic representation to help you achieve the best possible results in your divorce. Contact us today for a consultation and let us guide you through the complexities of Utah divorce law.
Call us at (801) 210-2829 or visit our website to schedule your consultation.
