In a new case, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of an alimony obligation upon retirement. In the original decree, wife agreement to pay alimony to husband under the usual standards for termination. However, the agreement did include language about retirement as a basis for termination.When she retired, wife sought to terminate her alimony obligation. At trial, it was shown that husband's expenses did not exceed his income, so the trial court terminated the alimony obligation. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. It must be noted that this case was successful because of the inclusion of the language about retirement as a basis to change alimony.The case is Nicholson v. Nicholson
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision addressing whether a trial court can establish a proximity requirement for having the parties live within a given distance of each other; the concept of equalization and incomes in determining alimony; and, in the award of partial attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the proximity requirement (that the parties had to live within 25 miles of each other), and the denial of an award of partial attorney fees.The Court of Appeals remanded on the alimony issue stating that the trial court's explanation of its equalization was inadequate, and that it erred in using wife's gross income while only using husband's net income. It also suggested that the trial court review allocating the tax consequences of the alimony award as a matter of equity.
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a decision concerning this issue and addressed what constitutes a new income stream to justify a substantial change in circumstances to allow for a modification of alimony. The issue surrounded the sale of property which was awarded to the wife. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision that husband failed to show a substantial change in circumstances that was not foreseeable at the time of the original divorce. This is an important case exploring the "foreseeable" aspects intertwined with potential changes in circumstances, having potential dire consequences in hoping to change alimony "down the road".The case is MacDonald v. MacDonald.#alimony #property #divorceproperty #inheritance #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #marriage
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a new decision on this alimony issue. The main issue was that of the pre-divorce standard of living and the concept of equalization of the post-divorce standards of living rather than just going on the recipient's needs. The trial court erred in not establishing the base standard of living, instead going to simply the needs of the parties. The trial court's decision was vacated and the case remanded for the trial court to reassess its alimony award.The case is Rule v. Rule.
The Utah Court of Appeals issued a new decision addressing the requirements that must be demonstrated at trial, and reduced to findings by the court, in order for alimony to be properly awarded. The case is Chesley v. Chesley, and the main problem appeared that insufficient evidence was presented as to the recipient's need in relation to the amount of alimony awarded.#divorce #property #divorceproperty #inheritance #separateproperty #jointproperty #wealth #marriage #alimony #chesley
CUSTODY, PARENT-TIME, and VISITATION: