Michael R.

Johnson (7070) If you do not respond to this

Austin C. Nate (17789) document within applicable time
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. limits, judgment could be
36 South State Street, Suite 1400 entered against you as requested.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-1500
Facsimile: (801) 532-7543
Email: mjohnson@rqn.com
Email: anate@rqn.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kouri Richins

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SUMMIT COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

KOURI RICHINS, an individual, COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

v.
Case No.
KATIE RICHINS-BENSON, solely in her
capacity as Trustee of The Eric Richins Living Judge
Trust dated November 3, 2020,

Defendant. Tier 3

Plaintiff Kouri Richins, by and through her counsel of record, Ray Quinney & Nebeker

P.C., hereby complains of and for her causes of action against Katie Richins-Benson, solely in

her capacity as Trustee of The Eric Richins Living Trust dated November 3, 2020, states, alleges,

and avers as follows:

 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff Kouri Richins (“Kouri”) is an individual residing in Summit County,

Utah, and is the widow of Eric Richins (“Eric”). 1

2. Defendant Katie Richins-Benson is the Trustee (the “Trustee”) of The Eric

Richins Living Trust dated November 3, 2020 (the “Trust”).

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78A-5-

102.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-3-301(1), 304,

and 307.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Family Home.

5. On or around November 21, 2012, while engaged to be married, Eric and Kouri

purchased certain real property and related improvements located at 282 Willow Court, Francis,

UT 84036, Tax ID #: WWS-2D-D11 (the “Family Home”).

6. The Family Home has a legal description of Lot D11, WILD WILLOW

SUBDIVISION, PHASE 2D, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the

Summit County Recorder’s Office.

7. Eric and Kouri acquired the Family Home from Eric’s sister, Katie Lin Richins-

Benson, and her husband Clinton Alan Benson. Katie Lin Richins is the Defendant and Trustee

1
Because Kouri and Eric were married and had the same last name, this Complaint refers to each of them by their
first name so as to avoid confusion.

2
in this case, but she is not being sued in any fashion related to the initial sale of the Family

Home.

8. Eric and Kouri each contributed their own separate funds to the down payment on

the Family Home.

9. Before occupying the Family Home, and in accordance with an agreement

between Kouri and Eric, Kouri put the gas, telephone, internet, and electric utility bills

(collectively, “Utilities”) all in her name. Eric was not listed on any of the Utilities.

10. The Utilities have since remained solely in Kouri’s name.

11. While the Utilities were all in Kouri’s name, Kouri acknowledges and agrees that

the Family Home was a joint asset that she and Eric acquired together and held together.

12. Upon closing of the purchase of the Family Home, Kouri moved into the Family

Home. Eric moved in subsequently.

13. After jointly purchasing the Family Home and moving in together, Eric and Kouri

each contributed to the monthly mortgage payments.

14. Specifically, since at least September of 2013, all first mortgage payments on the

loan they used to acquire the Family Home have been made from Eric and Kouri’s joint America

First Credit Union account.

15. Kouri and Eric both funded the joint America First Credit Union account.

16. Although Eric and Kouri jointly purchased the Family Home, jointly paid down

the mortgage, jointly paid the Utilities, and otherwise agreed and acted in all respects as if the

Family Home was a joint marital asset, legal title to the Family Home has remained solely in

Eric’s name since its acquisition.

3
 17. Approximately six months after first moving into the Family Home, on June 15,

2013, Kouri and Eric were married in the backyard.

18. Kouri and Eric jointly resided in the Family Home, including raising their three

children there, at all times from the day they acquired it until March 4, 2022, when Eric

unexpectedly passed away in his sleep.

B. The Prenup.

19. Eric’s marriage to Kouri was his second marriage. His first marriage ended in

divorce.

20. Further, prior to his marriage to Kouri, Eric had acquired certain assets, including

his 50% ownership interest in the Business (defined below).

21. On June 15, 2013, immediately prior to the wedding and presumably because of

the unpleasantness surrounding Eric’s prior marriage and subsequent divorce, Eric’s mother

delivered to Kouri a prenuptial agreement (the “Prenup”) and requested that Kouri sign it. A

true and correct copy of the Prenup is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by

reference.

22. Kouri complied and both she and Eric signed the Prenup on their wedding day,

with the Prenup being notarized simultaneously with their wedding certificate by the very same

individual.

23. Section I, Paragraph 5 of the Prenup provides (emphasis supplied):

Future Income, Property, or Assets. The Parties acknowledge to each other that
each does not now have, possess, or claim any right or interest in the present or
future income, property, or assets of the other, including, but not limited to the
business known as “C&E Stone Masonry, LLC.” Said business is owned in
partnership between Husband and a third party. Wife shall have no right or claim
to the business, including its value, its assets and its accounts receivable, whether

4
 existing at the time of the marriage or to come into existence after the parties’
marriage, except that if Husband should die prior to Wife while the two are
lawfully married, Husband’s partnership interest in said business shall
transfer to the Wife.

24. Similarly, Section II, Paragraph 1 of the Prenup provides (emphasis supplied):

Separate Property of Husband. The parties foresee that, following the date of their
marriage, co-mingled marital funds may, from time to time, be spent on or invested
in the business C&E Stone Masonry, LLC. The parties agree that C&E Stone
Masonry, LLC., shall nevertheless remain the sole separate property of the
Husband. The expenditure of co-mingled marital funds on said business shall not
give Wife a claim or right to an interest in said business or alter the separate
ownership of said business, except that if Husband should die prior to Wife
while the two are lawfully married, Husband’s partnership interest in said
business shall transfer to the Wife.

25. Attached as “EXHIBIT A” to the Prenup is a “SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT

SEPARATE PROPERTY OF HUSBAND” which lists Eric’s assets and debts (the “List of

Assets”) that were acquired prior to the marriage. The intent of the List of Assets was to “give a

fair, reasonable, and adequate disclosure of the assets of [Eric] by category.”

26. The List of Assets is limited to business assets and includes only Eric’s fifty

percent (50%) ownership interest in C&E Stone Masonry, LLC (the “Business”), a fork lift,

skidster, scaffolding and saws, two trucks, and a dump trailer.

27. Notwithstanding the List of Assets showing Eric’s separate property, the Prenup

expressly provides that should Eric pass away prior to Kouri while they are lawfully married,

Eric’s ownership interest in the Business shall transfer to Kouri effective upon his death.

28. The List of Assets does not include the Family Home, nor does the Prenup make

mention of any real property purportedly owned by Eric. The List of Assets also limits personal

property to the specific items listed by Eric in EXHIBIT A (i.e., his interest in the Business and

in certain personal property assets related to the Business).

5
 C. The Buy-Sell Agreement.

29. On or around June 25, 2019, Eric and his business partner Cody Wright entered

into that certain C&E Stone Masonry LLC Buy-Sell Agreement (the “Buy-Sell Agreement”). 2

30. At the time of his death, Eric owned a fifty percent (50%) interest in the Business

(the “Business Interest”) that was subject to the rights granted to Kouri in the Prenup.

31. At the time of his death, the value of Eric’s Business Interest easily exceeded

$2,000,000.00.

32. The Buy-Sell Agreement requires that, should Eric or his business partner pass

away, the surviving partner must purchase the decedent’s interest in the Business using the

proceeds of mandatory life insurance policies carried by both partners (the “Buy-Sell

Proceeds”).

33. On or around February 16, 2021, Eric purported to assign the Business Interest to

the Trust.

34. To the extent that such transfer was even effective, it did not extinguish Kouri’s

rights in the Business Interest as granted in the Prenup. Rather, any such assignment carried with

it Kouri’s vested and pre-existing rights to the Business Interest as set forth in the Prenup.

D. The Trust.

35. On or around November 3, 2020, Eric created and executed the Trust, which was

to remain revocable until his death. 3

2
The Buy-Sell Agreement is not included as an exhibit because it may contain confidential or proprietary
information, and also because Eric’s business partner is not a party to this litigation. In any event, Defendant has a
copy of the Buy-Sell Agreement in her records.
3
The Trust is not included as an exhibit because it is voluminous. In any event, Defendant has a copy of the Trust
in her records.

6
 36. As set forth in Article One of the Trust, Eric’s objective in creating the Trust was

to “provide for both my wife and our children during any time that I am incapacitated and after

my death.” Article One further provides that “[a]ll provisions of this trust are to be interpreted to

accomplish my objectives.”

37. Article One also establishes the initial funding of the Trust. Schedule A attached

to the Trust identifies Eric’s assets that were purportedly transferred to the Trust upon its

creation and execution.

38. Schedule A includes the following assets purportedly transferred to the Trust: (1)

ten dollars in cash; (2) unspecified household furnishings and effects; (3) the Family Home; (4)

the Business Interest; and (5) Eric’s interest in a separate business, Fox Lake Investments, LLC.

39. On or around November 3, 2020, Eric purported to convey the Family Home to

the Trust via warranty deed. A true and correct copy of the Warranty Deed is attached hereto as

Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.

40. Eric purported to convey the Family Home without Kouri’s authorization or

knowledge.

41. On or around that same date, Eric purported to assign to the Trust all of his

tangible personal property, including his jewelry, clothing, household furniture, furnishings and

fixtures, chinaware, silver, photographs, works of art, books, sporting goods, electronic

equipment, musical instruments, and artifacts relating to his hobbies (the “Personal Property”).

Eric did not, however, identify any Personal Property that belonged to him personally, as

opposed to belonging to him and Kouri jointly as a married couple. A true and correct copy of

7
the Assignment of Personal Property is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein

by reference.

42. The Personal Property that Eric owned as of the date of his marriage to Kouri is

set forth and identified specifically in the Prenup.

43. Other than Personal Property specifically identified in the Prenup, any Personal

Property that Eric acquired during his marriage was joint property belonging to Eric and Kouri

jointly as husband and wife.

44. Despite the purported assignment of Personal Property to the Trust, Eric

purchased the Personal Property using funds from his and Kouri’s joint accounts, and Eric

purported to assign the Personal Property without Kouri’s knowledge.

45. In any event, the only assets that Eric could have lawfully transferred or assigned

to the Trust would be his personal assets, or his interest in joint assets that he and Kouri owned

together.

46. Eric did not, and could not have, transferred Kouri’s assets or Kouri’s interest in

joint assets to the Trust.

47. Article Two of the Trust expressly refers to the Prenup and states: “We executed a

prenuptial agreement on June 15, 2013 which has not been revoked or amended.”

48. In other words, pursuant to the terms of the Trust, the Prenup remains in full force

and effect.

49. Eric was the trustee of the Trust during his lifetime.

50. Upon his death, however, the Trustee became the successor trustee of the Trust.

8
 E. The Will.

51. Concurrent with his execution of the Trust, Eric also executed the Will of Eric

Richins (the “Will”). A true and correct copy of the Will is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and

incorporated herein by reference.

52. Similar to the Trust, Article One of the Will refers to the Prenup and states: “This

will complies with the prenuptial agreement my wife and I signed on June 15, 2013.”

53. In other words, just like the Trust, the Will acknowledges that the Prenup remains

in full force and effect.

54. The Will requires that all of Eric’s probate estate be poured over to the Trust and

administered under the terms of the Trust.

F. Eric’s Passing.

55. On March 4, 2022, Eric unexpectedly passed away in his sleep.

56. At the time of his death, Eric and Kouri were lawfully married and had three

minor children.

57. The following evening, on March 5, 2022, several individuals, including the

Trustee’s sister, spent the night at the Family Home.

58. The next morning, on March 6, 2022, Kouri asked the sister to leave to give her

time and space to grieve the passing of her husband.

59. Despite Kouri’s requests, the sister refused to leave and began threatening and

verbally accosting Kouri. After Kouri insisted that the sister leave, the sister asserted that Kouri

did not own the Family Home and that she would ensure Kouri was kicked out of the Family

Home.

9
 60. The Trustee, through her agents, have also taken the position with Kouri and/or

Kouri’s agents that the Family Home and some or all of the Personal Property in the Home

belong exclusively to the Trust, and that Kouri has no interest in those assets.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment – the Family Home)

61. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

62. There presently exists an actual and continuing controversy between Kouri and

the Trust concerning the ownership of the Family Home.

63. Specifically, the Trust contends that it now owns the Family Home, and Kouri has

no interest therein.

64. Kouri, on the other hand, contends that she either owns the Family Home outright

because the home was owned in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, or alternatively that

she and the Trust each own the Family Home as tenants in common.

65. While legal title to the Family Home may have been in Eric’s name, Kouri and

Eric both held equitable title and, in fact, Kouri and Eric owned the Family Home as joint tenants

with the right of survivorship.

66. Eric’s purported transfer of the Family Home to the Trust did not sever the joint

tenancy because the transfer did not constitute a bona fide conveyance to a third party.

67. When Eric passed away, title to the Family Home transferred to Kouri as the

surviving owner of the Family Home.

68. The Trust has no legal or equitable interest in the Family Home.

10
 69. Accordingly, Kouri is entitled to a declaratory judgment from this Court that she

is the sole legal and equitable owner of the Family Home, and that the Trust holds no interest,

right, or title to or in the Family Home.

70. In the alternative, at the time Eric purported to transfer the Family Home to the

Trust, equitable title was held by Kouri and Eric as tenants in common. The only interest that

Eric could have transferred to the Trust was his interest in the Family Home; he had no authority

to transfer Kouri’s interest.

71. Accordingly, at a minimum, Kouri is entitled to an order declaring that Kouri and

the Trust each own an undivided interest in the Family Home as tenants in common.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Quiet Title – the Family Home)

72. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

73. Kouri has a valid interest in the Family Home adverse to the Trust’s purported

interest in the Family Home.

74. Kouri’s interest in the Family Home is superior to the Trust’s purported interest in

the Family Home.

75. Alternatively, Kouri’s interest and the Trust’s interests in the Family Home are

identical; i.e., they each own an undivided interest as tenants in common.

76. Kouri clearly holds an equitable interest in the Family Home because (a) she and

Eric purchased the home together, (b) she and Eric both contributed to the down payment, (c) she

and Eric both contributed to all first mortgage payments through their joint bank account, (d) the

Utilities for the home were always in Kouri’s name, and (e) she and Eric mutually resided in the

11
home as a married couple at all times from the time they purchased it until Eric’s untimely

passing.

77. Kouri is the legal and equitable owner of the Family Home and is entitled to an

order quieting title to the Family Home in Kouri and declaring that the Trust has no legal,

equitable or other interest, right, or title to or in the Family Home.

78. In the alternative, Kouri is entitled to an order finding that legal and equitable title

is held by Kouri and the Trust as tenants in common, and quieting title to the Family Home in

Kouri and the Trust as tenants in common.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment – the Personal Property)

79. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

80. There presently exists an actual and continuing controversy between Kouri and

the Trust concerning the ownership of the Personal Property. Indeed, on information and belief,

the Trust asserts that it owns the Personal Property, and that Kouri has no right, claim or interest

therein.

81. Kouri, on the other hand, asserts that she owns the Personal Property either

outright, or jointly with the Trust as tenants in common.

82. Other than the Personal Property specifically identified in the Prenup, any

Personal Property that Eric acquired during his marriage to Kouri was joint property belonging to

Eric and Kouri jointly as husband and wife.

83. Indeed, much if not all of that Personal Property would have been acquired

through joint credit accounts or through payment from joint bank accounts.

12
 84. With respect to all Personal Property acquired after their marriage, Kouri and Eric

owned the Personal Property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship.

85. Eric’s purported assignment of the Personal Property to the Trust did not sever the

joint tenancy because the assignment did not constitute a bona fide conveyance to a third party.

86. When Eric passed away, title to the Personal Property transferred to Kouri as the

surviving owner of the Personal Property.

87. Accordingly, Kouri is entitled to a declaratory judgment from this Court that she

is the sole and lawful owner of all Personal Property Eric had an interest in at the time of his

death (excluding Personal Property specifically identified in the Prenup), and the Trust holds no

interest, right, or title to or in the Personal Property.

88. In the alternative, at the time Eric purported to transfer the Personal Property to

the Trust, equitable title was held by Kouri and Eric as tenants in common. The only interest that

Eric could have transferred to the Trust was his interest in the Personal Property; he had no

authority to transfer Kouri’s interest.

89. Accordingly, at a minimum, Kouri is entitled to an order declaring that Kouri and

the Trust each own an undivided interest in the Property as tenants in common.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Quiet Title – the Personal Property)

90. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

91. Kouri has a valid interest in the Personal Property adverse to the Trust’s purported

interest in the Personal Property.

13
 92. Kouri’s interest in the Personal Property is superior to the Trust’s purported

interest in the Personal Property. Alternatively, Kouri’s interest and the Trust’s interests in the

Personal Property are identical; i.e., they each own an undivided interest as tenants in common.

93. Kouri clearly holds an equitable interest in the Personal Property because the

Personal Property was acquired during her marriage to Eric with joint funds or through joint

credit accounts, and were assets that were used for the benefit of Kouri and Eric and their three

minor children.

94. Kouri is the legal and equitable owner of the Personal Property and is entitled to

an order quieting title to the Personal Property in Kouri and declaring that the Trust has no legal

or equitable interest, right, or title to or in the Personal Property.

95. In the alternative, Kouri is entitled to an order quieting title in the Personal Property

in the name of both Kouri and the Trust, as tenants in common.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment – the Business Interest and the Buy-Sell Proceeds)

96. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

97. There presently exists an actual and continuing controversy between Kouri and the

Trust concerning the ownership of the Business Interest and, therefore, the forthcoming Buy-Sell

Proceeds.

98. Indeed, the Trust contends or may contend that ownership of the Business Interest

and the proceeds thereof (including any funds paid to acquire the Business Interest) belong to the

Trust, and that Kouri has no right, claim or interest therein.

14
 99. Kouri, on the other hand, contends that pursuant to the Prenup, the Business Interest

and any proceeds thereof passed to her immediately upon Eric’s death. Kouri further contends

that any assignment of the Business Interest to the Trust was subject to and conditioned upon

Kouri’s existing and vested rights under the Prenup.

100. The Prenup expressly provides that should Eric die while he is legally married to

Kouri, the Business Interest transfers to Kouri.

101. Eric and Kouri were legally married at the time of Eric’s death.

102. Accordingly, Kouri is entitled to a declaratory judgment that, effective immediately

upon Eric’s death and notwithstanding his purported transfer to the Trust, Kouri became the sole

legal owner of the Business Interest and therefore the proper recipient of the Buy-Sell Proceeds

once Eric’s business partner purchases the Business Interest.

103. Kouri is further entitled to a declaratory judgment that Eric’s purported transfer of

the Business Interest was not a bona fide transfer to a third party and is therefore void and of no

effect.

104. Kouri is further entitled to a declaratory judgment that, to the extent Eric properly

transferred the Business Interest to the Trust, that transfer was subject to Kouri’s pre-existing and

vested rights under the Prenup, and that the Trust could not gain greater rights to the Business

Interest than Eric himself enjoyed while he was alive.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Quiet Title – the Business Interest and the Buy-Sell Proceeds)

105. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

15
 106. Kouri has a valid interest in the Business Interest and, therefore, the Buy-Sell

Proceeds adverse to the Trust’s purported interest in the same.

107. Kouri’s interest in the Business Interest and the Buy-Sell Proceeds is superior to the

Trust’s purported interest in the same.

108. Kouri is the legal and equitable owner of the Business Interest and is the sole proper

recipient of the Buy-Sell Proceeds and is entitled to an order quieting title to the same in Kouri

and declaring that the Trust has no interest, right, or title to or in the Business Interest or the

Buy-Sell Proceeds.

109. Further, to the extent Eric’s transfer of the Business Interest to the Trust was valid,

Kouri is likewise entitled to an order quieting title and ruling that any such transfer was subject

to Kouri’s vested and pre-existing rights to the Business Interest under the Prenup, and that the

Trust is entitled to turn over all proceeds of the Business Interest, including any Buy-Sell

Proceeds, to Kouri.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Avoidance of Fraudulent or Avoidable Transfer)

110. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

111. Kouri had and has a claim to and interest in the Family Home, the Personal

Property, and the Business Interest.

112. Notwithstanding Kouri’s claim and interest in these assets, Eric purported to

transfer the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest to the Trust.

16
 113. Eric transferred the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest

to the Trust with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Kouri and her claim to and interest in

the same.

114. Indeed, at the time of the transfer, Eric had full knowledge of, and was aware that,

Kouri claimed an interest in the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest.

115. Alternatively, Eric’s transfer of the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the

Business Interest to the Trust was done without Eric receiving reasonably equivalent value, and

Eric was engaged or was about to engage in a business or transaction for which his remaining

assets were unreasonably small.

116. Moreover, Eric’s transfer or purported transfer of these assets to the Trust was done

without Eric receiving reasonably equivalent value, and the transfer rendered Eric insolvent.

117. Indeed, Eric’s transfer or purported transfer of these assets to the Trust left Eric

with no remaining assets of any material value.

118. Defendant, as the successor trustee under the Trust, is liable for all actions taken by

Eric while he was the trustee of the Trust. This includes his actions, in his capacity as trustee of

the Trust, in receiving property that was subject to Kouri’s voidable transfer claims.

119. Accordingly, Kouri is entitled to an order against the Trustee and the Trust which

avoids Eric’s transfer of the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest to the

Trust.

120. Alternatively, Kouri is entitled to an order partially avoiding Eric’s transfer of the

Family Home and the Personal Property to the Trust to the extent that it purported to transfer

Kouri’s undivided tenancy in common interest in the Family Home and the Personal Property.

17
 121. Kouri also is entitled to an injunction against the Trust to further disposition by the

Trust of these assets.

122. Kouri also is entitled to an attachment or other provisional remedy against these

assets to satisfy Kouri’s rights and claims.

123. Kouri also is entitled to appointment of a receiver to take charge of these assets so

that they can be administered and liquidated for her benefit.

124. Finally, to the extent these transfers cannot be avoided or Kouri cannot otherwise be

made whole through orders vesting title in her name, then Kouri is entitled to a money judgment

against the Trust for the fair market value of the assets that were transferred to the Trust.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unjust Enrichment)

125. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

126. Eric’s transfer of the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest

conferred a substantial benefit on the Trust, and a substantial detriment upon Kouri.

127. The Trust clearly knew of and appreciated the benefit it received, because Eric was

the sole trustee of the Trust at the time of these transfers.

128. It would be inequitable and unjust for the Trust to keep and retain these assets

without compensating Kouri for their value.

129. Therefore, to prevent unjust enrichment, Kouri is entitled to a money judgment

against the Trust in an amount to be proven at trial, but which is not less than $300,000.00

18
 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Constructive Trust)

130. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

131. At all material times, Kouri and Eric were married and, as such, were in a

confidential or fiduciary relationship with one another.

132. As set forth above, Eric’s transfer of the Family Home, the Personal Property, and

the Business Interest to the Trust constitutes unjust enrichment.

133. Further, Eric’s transfer of the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the

Business Interest to the Trust may have constituted a breach of Eric’s fiduciary duty to his wife.

134. Further, Eric’s transfer of the Family Home, the Personal Property, and the

Business Interest to the Trust may have constituted the tort of conversion under Utah law.

135. Under Utah law, a constructive trust may be imposed to (a) to remedy unjust

enrichment, (b) to remedy breaches of fiduciary duty, and (c) to remedy a conversion.

136. Under Utah law, a constructive trust also may be imposed in any other

circumstances where a person holds title to an asset in his or her name, but there is an equitable

duty to convey title to another and/or where such title is equitably held in another.

137. The Court should impose a constructive trust on the Family Home, the Personal

Property, and the Business Interest and, to the extent the Trust is holding these assets, declare

that the Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as the sole beneficiary of the

constructive trust.

138. Alternatively, and with respect to the Family Home and the Personal Property, if

Kouri is not the sole beneficiary of the constructive trust, then the Court should declare that the

19
Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as a fifty percent (50%) beneficiary of the

constructive trust.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Resulting Trust)

139. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

140. Under Utah law, where title to an asset is held in the name of either a husband or

wife, but the asset was acquired jointly by the husband and wife or the husband and wife

otherwise contributed to its acquisition and maintenance, the court may impose a resulting trust

on the asset for the spouse whose name is not listed on the title.

141. As set forth herein, both the Family Home and the Personal Property were acquired

jointly by Kouri and Eric, and both Kouri and Eric contributed to the acquisition and

maintenance of these assets.

142. As set forth herein, the Prenup expressly provides that upon Eric’s death the

Business Interest would become Kouri’s property, provided Eric and Kouri were married at the

time of Eric’s death.

143. Notwithstanding these facts, legal title to the Family Home was vested only in

Eric’s name at the time of his death, and the Trust also contends that the Personal Property

belonged only to Eric.

144. Further, Eric transferred or purported to transfer the Business Interest to the Trust.

145. The Court should impose a resulting trust on the Family Home, the Personal

Property, and the Business Interest and, to the extent the Trust is holding these assets, declare

20
that the Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as the sole beneficiary of the resulting

trust.

146. Alternatively, with respect to the Family Home and the Personal Property only, if

Kouri is not the sole beneficiary of the resulting trust, then the Court should declare that the

Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as a fifty percent (50%) beneficiary of the

resulting trust.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Partition)

147. Kouri incorporates the allegations of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

148. In the event the Court determines that Kouri does not own the Family Home and the

Personal Property outright and in their entirety, then Kouri and the Trust own the Family Home

and the Personal Property as tenants in common.

149. Kouri and the Trust are the only parties with any potential interest in the Family

Home and the Personal Property.

150. Kouri and the Trust would each be benefitted by a partition of the Family Home and

the Person Property, to the extent those assets are held in tenancy in common.

151. Therefore, Kouri requests with respect to the Family Home and the Personal

Property that, to the extent those assets are owned jointly by Kouri and the Trust as tenants in

common, that the tenancy be partitioned and the Trust be required to sell its interest in the

Family Home and the Personal Property to Kouri for an amount that equals the fair market value

of the Trust’s interest in those assets.

21
 152. Requiring the Trust to sell its interest in the Family Home and the Personal Property

to Kouri would not be prejudicial to the Trust but would effectuate the intent of the Trust and the

Will by ensuring the Family Home benefits Kouri and Eric’s three children.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Kouri prays for judgment in her favor and

against the Trustee as follows:

A. As to her First and Third Claims for Relief, an order declaring: (1) Kouri and Eric

owned the Family Home and the Personal Property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship;

(2) Eric’s purported transfer of the Family Home and the Personal Property to the Trust did not

sever the joint tenancy; (3) Eric’s interest in the Family Home and the Personal Property

transferred to Kouri by operation of law upon his death; (4) Kouri is the sole and lawful legal and

equitable owner of the Family Home and the Personal Property; and (5) the Trust holds no legal

or equitable interest, right, or title to or in the Family Home or the Personal Property. In the

alternative, an order declaring that title to the Family Home and the Personal Property is held by

Kouri and the Trust as tenants in common, and that each has an undivided interest in these assets;

B. As to her Second and Fourth Claims for Relief, an order quieting title to the

Family Home and the Personal Property in Kouri and declaring that the Trust has no legal or

equitable interest, right, or title to or in the Family Home or the Personal Property. In the

alternative, an order quieting title to the Family Home and the Personal Property in Kouri and the

Trust, as tenants in common;

C. As to her Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief, an order: (1) declaring that, upon

Eric’s death, Kouri became the sole legal and equitable owner of the Business Interest

22
notwithstanding the purported transfer to the Trust; (2) declaring that she is the sole and proper

owner and recipient of the Buy-Sell Proceeds; (3) declaring that Eric’s purported transfer of the

Business Interest was and is void and of no effect or, alternatively, that any transfer of the

Business Interest to the Trust was subject to Kouri’s pre-existing and vested rights under the

Prenup; (4) quieting title to the Business Interest and the Buy-Sell Proceeds in Kouri; and (5)

declaring that the Trust has no legal or equitable interest, right, or title to or in the Business

Interest or the Buy-Sell Proceeds;

D. As to her Seventh Claim for Relief, an order avoiding Eric’s transfer of the

Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest to the Trust. In the alternative, an

order partially avoiding Eric’s transfer of the Family Home and the Personal Property to the

Trust to the extent that it purported to transfer Kouri’s tenancy in common interest in those assets

to the Trust. Kouri also is entitled to (1) an injunction against the Trust to further disposition of

by the Trust of these assets; (2) an attachment or other provisional remedy against these assets to

satisfy Kouri’s rights and claims; (3) appointment of a receiver to take charge of these assets so

that they can be administered and liquidated for her benefit; and (4) to the extent these transfers

cannot be avoided or Kouri cannot otherwise be made whole through orders vesting title in her

name, a money judgment against the Trust for the fair market value of the assets that were

transferred to the Trust;

E. As to her Eighth Claim for Relief, for a money judgment for unjust enrichment, in

an amount to be proven at trial, but which is not less than $300,000.00;

F. As to her Ninth Claim for Relief, for imposition of a constructive trust on the

Family Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest and, to the extent the Trust is

23
holding these assets, a declaration that the Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as the

sole beneficiary of the constructive trust. Alternatively, if Kouri is not the sole beneficiary of the

constructive trust, then a declaration that the Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as a

fifty percent (50%) beneficiary of the constructive trust;

G. As to her Tenth Claim for Relief, for imposition of a resulting trust on the Family

Home, the Personal Property, and the Business Interest and, to the extent the Trust is holding

these assets, a declaration that the Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as the sole

beneficiary of the resulting trust. Alternatively, if Kouri is not the sole beneficiary of the

resulting trust, then a declaration that the Trust holds these assets for the benefit of Kouri as a

fifty percent (50%) beneficiary of the resulting trust;

H. As to her Eleventh Claim for Relief, an order partitioning the Family Home and

Personal Property and the tenancy in common to the extent Kouri does not own those assets in

their entirety, and requiring the Trust to sell its interest in those assets to Kouri for the fair

market value of the Trust’s ownership interest;

I. For judgment against the Trustee for reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs;

and

J. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable in the

premises.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2022.

RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.

/s/ Austin C. Nate

Michael R. Johnson
Austin C. Nate
Attorneys for Plaintiff Kouri Richins

24
Plaintiff’s Address:
282 Willow Court
Francis, Utah 84036

1597320

25
EXHIBIT A
K RICHINS 000030
K RICHINS 000031
K RICHINS 000032
K RICHINS 000033
K RICHINS 000034
K RICHINS 000035
K RICHINS 000036
K RICHINS 000037
K RICHINS 000038
EXHIBIT B
K RICHINS 000417
EXHIBIT C
K RICHINS 000473
EXHIBIT D
K RICHINS 000458
K RICHINS 000459
K RICHINS 000460
K RICHINS 000461
K RICHINS 000462
K RICHINS 000463
K RICHINS 000464
K RICHINS 000465
K RICHINS 000466
K RICHINS 000467
K RICHINS 000468
K RICHINS 000469