Mr. and Mrs. Chesley were married in 2007. They had two children together. Mrs. Chelsey filed for divorce in July 2014.

Mrs. Chelsey filed a motion for temporary alimony in October 2014. Accompanying her motion, Mrs. Chesley filed a financial declaration in which she claimed monthly expenses of $3,179.34 and monthly income of $2,249.67, resulting in a monthly shortfall of $929.67.

Following a hearing in November 2014 the commissioner entered an order requiring Mr. Chesley to pay Mrs. Chesley $900 per month in alimony, which Mr. Chesley failed to pay.

Later, the parties underwent a one-day bench trial in order to resolve disputed issues, most notably, that of alimony. Mrs. Chesley presented evidence that she worked part time and went to school full-time to improve her employment opportunities and increase her income earning capacity. She had been a stay at home mom during the marriage.

Mrs. Chesley alleged in her updated financial declaration that she had monthly income of $2,800 and monthly expenses of $3,933. These expenses included $1,200 per month in child care expenses. She further testified that she was receiving about $1,700 per month in government assistance and $400 per month from her father.

Mr. Smith testified that he earned $31.64 per hour, but that his income varied depending on how much overtime he worked. His income in 2014 was about $94,000. He testified that his monthly expenses were around $5,400, which included his $1,019 monthly child support obligation.

For purposes of the alimony determination the court imputed income to Mrs. Chesley of $13 per hour based on a 40-hour work week, or $2,253 per month. In addition to this imputed income, the Court found that she had $318 per month of income in child support for a child from a prior relationship and $1,019 per month of income in child support from Mr. Chesley. This brought her total monthly income to $3,590.

The Court found that Mr. Chesley’s income had been going up for several years and projected that he was on track to earn over $100,000 that year. Nevertheless, the Court set Mr. Chesley’s income at $6,500, observing that this amount was conservative given his earning trajectory.

The court ordered Mr. Chesley to pay Mrs. Chesley alimony in the amount of $900 per month, to continue for the length of the marriage.

The Court found that Mrs. Chesley needed to go to school to improve her employment prospects. It noted that she had supported Mr. Chesley throughout the marriage in his employment and had helped him improve his economic opportunities. The court observed that Mrs. Chesley was receiving substantial government assistance but that the prospect of this continuing at the same level was very unlikely. Finally, the Court noted that its alimony award did not constitute income equalization and it still allowed Mr. Chesley to have significantly more income than Mrs. Chesley.

Mr. Chesley filed a motion to amend the trial court’s findings of fact and for a new trial pursuant to rule 52(b) and rule 59(a)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. In his motion, Mr. Chesley observed that Mrs. Chesley had alleged monthly expenses of $3,933 and that the court had found she had monthly income of $3,590. Moreover, he noted that Mrs. Chesley’s alleged expenses included $1,200 per month for day care expenses, of which he was paying one-half. Based on these factors, he argued that Mrs. Chesley had not established her need for alimony because her income exceeded her expenses. Alternatively, he argued that the court should make new findings based on the evidence presented at trial.

The trial court denied the motion and Mr. Chesley appealed.

The Utah Court of Appeals noted the applicable standard of review of an alimony award as follows: “Trial courts have considerable discretion in determining alimony and determinations of alimony will be upheld on appeal unless a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion is desmonstrated.” Boyer v. Boyer, 2011 UT App. 141, paragraph 9, 259 P.3d 1063. “[W]here a trial court fails to enter specific findings on the needs and condition of the recipient spouse, making effective review of the alimony award impossible, that omission is an abuse of discretion.” Bakanowski v. Bakanowski, 2003 UT App. 357, paragraph 10, 80 P.3d 153.

On appeal, Mr. Chesley argued that the court had failed to consider Mrs. Chesley’s needs in making its alimony award.

Citing the case of Roberts v. Roberts, 2014 UT App. 211 paragraph 14, 335 P.3d 378, the Court noted the purposes of an initial alimony award, which are: 1) to get the parties as close as possible to the same standard of living that existed during the marriage; 2) to equalize the standards of living of each party; and 3) to prevent the recipient spouse from becoming a public charge.

The Court noted that, in making an alimony award, a trial court must consider and weigh certain statutory factors, including: a) the financial needs of the recipient spouse, b) the recipient spouse’s ability to contribute to his or her own needs (i.e., the recipient spouse’s earning capacity), c) the ability of the payor spouse to provide support, d) the length of the marriage, e) whether the recipient spouse has custody of children requiring support, f) whether the recipient spouse worked in a business owned or operated by the payor spouse, and g) whether the recipient spouse directly contributed to the payor spouse’s acquisition of or increase in skills by paying for the payor’s education or enabling him or her to attend school or further their education.

These factors are set out in Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(a).

Citing the case of Taft v. Taft, 2016 UT App. 135 paragraph 14, 379 P.3d 890, the Court observed that a trial court must “make adequate findings on all material issues of alimony to reveal the reasoning followed in making the award.” Moreover, the Court opined, “[f]indings are adequate only when they are sufficiently detailed and include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the trial court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual issue.” Id.

In the instant case the Court noted that the trial court had made findings on several of the statutory factors, including the length of the marriage, Mrs. Chesley’s earning capacity, and the fact that she had two children in her care and custody.

However, ultimately, the Court concluded that the trial court had failed to make adequate findings regarding Mrs. Chesley’s demonstrated financial need. Bakanowski v. Bakanowski, 2003 UT App. 357, paragraph 13, 80 P.3d 153 (“The absence of findings of fact is a fundamental defect that makes it impossible to review the issues that were briefed without invading the trial court’s fact-finding domain.”)

In particular, the Court had failed to make any significant findings with respect to Mrs. Chesley’s needs. Although the Court had found generally that Mrs. Chesley had a need for more schooling to obtain better employment, it had failed to make any detailed findings with respect to the cost of tuition or retraining.

The Court noted the truism stated in Jensen v. Jensen, 2008 UT App. 392, paragraph 13, 197 P.3d 117 that “regardless of the payor spouse’s ability to pay more, the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award.”

Because of the district court’s failure to make findings regarding Mrs. Chesley’s financial needs, the Court vacated the alimony award and remanded for the entry of more complete findings of fact.

See Chesley v. Chesley, 2017 UT App. 127.

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.