A 2017 Utah Court of Appeals case comprehensively sets forth the process courts must follow in setting an alimony award.

In Rule v. Rule, 2017 UT App 137, wife Rochelle complained that the trial court had not assessed the parties’ marital standard of living in setting its alimony award. This was despite the fact that she had presented evidence of her financial needs in the form of both her actual current expenses and her expenses during the marriage at the time of the parties’ separation. She appealed the court’s decision. The Utah Court of Appeals agreed with her contention that the court should have assessed her needs in light of the marital standard of living.

The threefold purpose of alimony is: 1) to maintain the parties as nearly as possible in the standard of living that prevailed during the marriage; 2) to equalize the standards of living of each party; 3) to prevent the recipient spouse from becoming a public charge.

The proper standard in setting alimony is the standard of living during the marriage and not the standard of living at the time of trial.

As an initial matter, therefore, the courts determine the recipient spouse’s needs based on the marital standard of living, which is not determined by actual expenses alone, because those expenses may of necessity be less than the expenses that prevailed during the marriage for a variety of reasons, including the recipient spouse’s diminished income or lack of income after the parties’ separation. This may be so due to the exigencies of needing to forge ahead with a separate life in more straitened circumstances.

The initial marital standard of living analysis thus serves as a baseline for setting an alimony award that maintains each party as far as possible in the standard of living that prevailed during the marriage and gives each party relatively equal odds in setting out on a fresh start.

In addition, doing the standard of living analysis in the first instance may mitigate evidentiary difficulties due to the passage of time in a subsequent alimony modification case. Since divorce decrees are subject to the court’s continuing jurisdiction, they may be modified upon a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances not foreseeable at the time of the divorce. For example, if the paying spouse’s income substantially increases after the initial alimony award, having already established the marital standard of living will greatly simplify the modification case, since the recipient spouse’s needs (based on the marital standard of living) sets the upper bound for a permissible alimony award.

In addition, it would be difficult to advance the overall goal of alimony of maintaining the parties in the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage without first establishing what that standard is.

Utah courts have laid out the process court’s should follow in setting an alimony award:

1. The first step is to determine the parties needs in light of the marital standard of living.

2. Next, the court considers to what extent the recipient spouse is able to meet her own needs with her own income. If the court finds the recipient spouse can meet all of her own needs, then it need not award alimony.

3. If the court determines the recipient spouse has a shortfall, it should determine whether the paying spouse, after meeting his own needs, can contribute to some or all of the shortfall. This step should be undertaken with an eye towards equalizing the standard of living of the parties only if there are not enough resources to maintain the parties in the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage. This is often referred to as equalization of incomes but is more appropriately characterized as equalization of poverty. In other words, the court must determine how the shortfall should be equitably shared. A court must make adequate findings to justify a decision disproportionately burdening one party with the shortfall.

4. Once the court has established that a shortfall exists between the parties needs and resources, it has broad discretion in dividing the shortfall and apportioning the burden so long as its decision is equitable and supported by the findings. Although equalization does not require exact mathematical equalization of the parties’ incomes it does require sufficient parity to allow the parties an equal footing in the divorce. Sometimes one party may have greater needs than the other party. It is error, an abuse of discretion, for a court to equalize the parties’ incomes without going through the traditional needs analysis. A court must determine the needs of the parties based on the marital standard of living rather than just the needs at the time of trial.

A court is not obligated to assess the marital standard of living if it is not presented with evidence to allow it to do so. But in the instant case, Richelle had presented to the court evidence of both her current expenses at the time of trial and the expenses that had prevailed during the marriage.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that “the parties’ historical living standard is a baseline for determining whether a shortfall exists and at all and a necessary reference point in the determination of how to equitably allocate the shortfall.”

While the courts do have some discretion to base alimony on the standard of living at the time of trial, a resource shortfall alone is not sufficient to justify a departure from the general rule of using the marital standard of living as the baseline in fashioning an alimony award.

In one case it was found to be an abuse of discretion to determine wife’s needs at the time of separation rather than at the time of trial where husband’s income had doubled in the two years between the time of separation and the time of trial and his increase in income had been at least in part attributable to the parties having persevered together during lean times.

The courts have disavowed the notion that a party’s need for alimony should be based on actual expenses alone because the actual expenses at the time of trial may be significantly lower than the standard of living the person became accustomed to during the marriage.

In the case at bar, for example, Richelle had submitted proof that during the marriage it was typical for the parties to own a home rather than to rent. She had also become accustomed to spending on certain discretionary items, such as regular contributions to a retirement account. Some of these items were not current expenses to her because of her reduced income at the time of trial.

Because the district court had not assessed Richelle’s needs in light of the parties’ marital standard of living, thus establishing a baseline from which to determine her shortfall, the matter was remanded to the trial court for further findings.

Pro tip: in presenting an alimony claim, always present evidence of the standard of living that prevailed during the marriage. Evidence of current expenses may supplement, but should not replace, proof of the marital standard of living.

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.