
    ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK and 4447 Associates, a Utah general partnership, by and through its general partner, Robert D. Kent, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. OVERTHRUST OIL & GAS CORPORATION, a Utah corporation; Faust Land, Inc., a Utah corporation; Bertagnole Investment Company Limited Partnership, a Utah limited partnership; Joseph L. Pentz; Capitol Thrift & Loan; Richard A. Christenson; and John Does 1 thru 100 and any and all persons who may claim any right, title, or interest in and to the property which is the subject of this action, Defendants and Appellants. OVERTHRUST OIL & GAS CORPORATION, a Utah corporation, and Faust Land, Inc., a Utah corporation, Cross-Claim Plaintiffs, v. CAPITOL THRIFT & LOAN, a Utah corporation, and Richard A. Christenson, an individual, Cross-Claim Defendants.
    No. 900391.
    Supreme Court of Utah.
    Feb. 6, 1992.
    Bruce J. Nelson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellees.
    Lorin N. Pace, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.
    R. Stephen Marshall, Salt Lake City, for cross-claim defendants.
   DURHAM, Justice:

Plaintiffs brought this foreclosure action concerning approximately 3,500 acres in Tooele County, Utah, that defendant Over-thrust Oil and Gas Corporation (Over-thrust) had pledged as security on a promissory note. At the time of foreclosure, title to the property was in Faust Land (Faust), a wholly owned subsidiary of Over-thrust. Overthrust and. Faust cross-claimed against codefendant Capitol Thrift, the sole maker of the note, and against codefendant Richard Christenson, the original guarantor of the note. The district court entered a foreclosure decree but allowed Overthrust and Faust to cross-claim against Capitol Thrift. The district court dismissed the cross-claim against Christen-son. Overthrust and Faust appeal the decree of foreclosure and the dismissal of the Christenson cross-claim.

Overthrust and Faust assert both legal and factual grounds for reversal. With regard to their factual challenges, they have failed to marshal the evidence. See Doelle v. Bradley, 784 P.2d 1176, 1178 (Utah 1989). We can discern no reason to conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not fully supported. We also find Overthrust and Faust’s legal claims to be without merit. We therefore affirm.

HALL, C.J., HOWE, Associate C.J., and STEWART, J., concur.

ZIMMERMAN, J., does not participate herein.  