In an opinion filed on March 29th, 2018, the Utah Court of Appeals decided the case of Christensen v. Christensen, 2018 UT App. 13, a request by Husband for alimony reduction.
Husband and Wife were divorced in 2008, and Husband was required to pay alimony of $1,100 per month to Wife.
The issue revolves around an ambiguous paragraph in the stipulated divorce decree, which read:
When [Wife] becomes eligible to receive Social Security, alimony will be adjusted to equalize the Social Security incomes of both of the parties. For example, if [Husband]’s monthly Social Security incomes is $2,000 and [Wife]’s monthly Social Security incomes is $1,000, such shall require an alimony payment of $500 to [Wife] to equalize the monthly Social Security incomes of the parties.
Wife became eligible for Social Security benefits in 2015. Shortly thereafter, Husband filed a motion seeking to have his alimony payment reduced. The district court denied the motion, disagreeing with Husband’s interpretation of the language of the decree. The court held that neither party had begun receiving Social Security income. Apparently, although they had become eligible for benefits, they had elected to defer those benefits, a decision which the Court of Appeals notes may be wise in certain circumstances, in order to allow the benefits to grow.
The district court refused to alter Husband’s alimony. Husband appealed.
The Court of Appeals noted that it does not typically give special deference to a district court’s interpretation of a written instrument, in this case a decree of divorce. An exception to this rule is when the written instrument is ambiguous, in which case the trial court typically considers extrinsic evidence (such as evidence of the parties’ intent) to assist it in interpreting the language of the document. The trial court then makes specific findings of fact in support of its interpretation of the ambiguous language. The appellate court then typically defers to the trial court’s findings of fact, unless they are clearly erroneous.
In the instant case, however, the parties had not recognized or admitted any ambiguity in the language of the divorce decree, and had therefore not sought to introduce any extrinsic evidence to help the trial court resolve the ambiguity. Rather, each party had taken the position that the language of the decree was unambiguous and each had advanced their own separate interpretation of the decree.
The Court of Appeals noted three ambiguities in the language cited above: 1) was the adjustment contemplated to be triggered when the Wife became eligible for social security benefits or when one or both parties began to actually receive social security income benefits? 2) Was the adjustment to be in addition to alimony the Wife was then receiving, or was it to supplant the existing alimony? 3) Why was the allocation of Social Security benefits treated as an alimony issue, rather than as the more straightforward matter of allocation of retirement benefits?
The Husband argued that the equalization of Social Security benefits should have occurred when the Wife first became eligible for benefits. The Court acknowledged that this argument was plausible, but it did not account for the difficulty of adjusting the social security incomes when the parties were not yet receiving social security income.
The Husband also argued that the alimony adjustment to equalize the parties’ social security incomes was intended to supplant, rather than supplement, the monthly $1,100 payment. He argued that, otherwise, he would need to dip into his other retirement assets to satisfy the alimony award and that this was contrary
The Court upheld the trial court’s denial of the Husband’s request for an adjustment. The Court noted that the case was a cautionary tale about careful drafting of a divorce decree to clearly set forth the parties’ intent and avoid any ambiguity.
I would also add that I believe Husband’s motion to adjust alimony was likely overreaching by being a bit premature, and thus opened the door for the negative outcome. It may have been easier for the trial court to do an alimony adjustment by equalizing the parties’ social security incomes if they had actually been receiving security benefits at the time. In that sense, perhaps the case illustrates the old saw: “pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.”
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation, but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted.
