Retirement Can be Valued at Time of Separation

Donnelly v. Donnelly, 2013 UT App 84 Utah Court of Appeals April 4, 2013

In a temporary order the trial court ordered Father pay child support, alimony, and the children’s medical expenses.  Mother relocated and Father bore the costs of visiting the children.

At trial, the court entered a decree awarding lower child support and alimony amounts, but did not make the amounts retroactive.  After the trial, Mother moved to divide retirement.  The court divided the retirement with value at the time of separation.  The Court also denied Father’s motion for credit towards his arrearage for the expenses he incurred to visit the children.   Father appeals the alimony award and expenses incurred for parent-time.  Mother appeals the valuation date of the retirement.

As to alimony, Father failed to preserve the pretrial order of alimony.  Father made several arguments about Wife’s diminished need while living with family and her income from gifts from family.  The Court of Appeals found that the trial court took note of gifts when making the alimony award and the award was not an abuse of discretion.

As to reimbursement of transportation costs for Father’s parent-time, the Court of Appeals found no statutory authority for the requested reimbursement and it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the reimbursement because Father failed to raise the issue at trial and made no motion to reopen evidence to address that issue.

As to valuation of the retirement, the Court found that generally retirements are valued at the time of the decree, however, when significant time (in this case 5 years) passes between the separation and Decree, it is not an abuse of discretion to value it at the time of separation.

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/donnelly040413.pdf

Needs of Recipient Spouse is the Maximum Alimony Award.

Dobson v. Dobson, 2012 UT App. 373, Utah Court of Appeals, December 28, 2012

Wife was awarded $800/ month alimony for 20 years as well as physical and legal custody of her two children.

Wife argued that the Court should not have considered child support as income in calculating alimony.  The Court of Appeals found that is best practice to calculate child support and alimony separately.  However, combining the calculations is not an abuse of discretion, particularly when Wife included the children’s expenses in her monthly need on her financial declaration.

Wife also argued that the trial court failed to consider Husband’s increased ability to pay as his child support obligation decreases.  Wife failed to demonstrate how Husband’s increased ability to pay affects her needs.  Because as Wife’s child support will decrease so should her obligations (i.e. no longer having to pay for the adult child). There was no abuse in discretion in the court’s consideration of Wife’s decrease in need.  Further, income to wife was correctly imputed because of Wife’s advanced decree and the testimony of the employability expert.

The Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded the alimony award to give proper consideration to the standard of living during the marriage.  The trial court reduced wife’s expenses without adequate explanation and is instructed to supply additional findings as to why it eliminated some of Wife’s claimed expenses as listed on her financial declaration.  Also remanded to correct the mathematical error in Father’s income.

Full opinion available at:  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/dobson122812.pdf  

Court Can Base It’s Rulings on Hypotheticals; and Animal Feed is Not Included in Child Support or Alimony

Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 2012 UT App. 282, Utah Court of Appeals, October 12, 2012

Husband and Wife were divorced.  Wife was awarded alimony based on a standard of living that would include a hypothetical $140,000 home.  The Court also awarded $200/month for the cost of animal feed for a minor daughter’s horses.  Husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals found that the relying on the $140,000 home was reasonable without any evidence to support such a number.  The court also found that the $200 for the animal costs appeared to be more related to the child’s extracurricular activity than to Wife’s standard of living.  Because it was an extracurricular expense, the Court of Appeals amended the award to deduct the cost of the animal feed.

The Court was divided on the both issues with a dissenting opinion on each.  Judge Orme dissented on the alimony award and asserted that the trial court should not have awarded alimony based on a hypothetical home.  Jude Orme accused the trial court of punishing husband for his fault for artificially lowering the parties living conditions during the marriage; and since fault cannot be used as a factor (keep in mind the new changes to U.C.A. §30-3-5, passed by legislature, not yet signed by Governor). 

Judge Thorne believed that the $200 for the feed should have been included in the alimony award because Wife’s standard of living had always included horses.    

Full opinion available at: http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/farnsworth10122012.pdf

Divorce: If a Decree Misclassifies a Payment, the Effective Date of the Reclassification is the Date of the Petition to Modify.

Cox v. Cox, 2012 UT App. 225, Utah Court of Appeals, August 16, 2012

In Husband and Wife’s stipulated divorce decree, husband was ordered to pay $3000 per month as a property settlement and child support.  Wife remarried.  Husband did not learn of the remarriage for two years, upon learning of the remarriage he petitioned the court to modify his decree and to properly classify the monthly payments as child support and alimony.

Because there was no consideration for the property payments, the trial court classified payments as alimony.  However, the Court terminated alimony on the day of the trial and not the date of remarriage. Husband appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of retroactively modifying the alimony award to the date of remarriage. The Court found it was Husband’s burden to have the payments classification corrected.  The court analogized this re-classification procedure with having to establish cohabitation in order to end alimony.  The misclassification in the decree is effective until a party asks to correct it.  The Court of Appeals did modify the award retroactively to the date the Petition to Modify was filed.

Full opinion available at:  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/cox265081612.pdf

Cohabitation = Marriage-Like Relationship Not Merely Sex + Same Roof

Myers v. Myers, 2011 UT 65, Utah Supreme Court October 21, 2011

Husband and Wife were divorced in 2006.  Husband was ordered to pay alimony.  For a time Wife resided with her parents.  The trial court found that while living with her parents, Wife engaged in sexual relations with a foster child teenager of Wife’s parents.   The trial court found that this was sufficient to show cohabitation and terminated alimony.  Mother Appealed.  The Court of Appeals reversed finding that cohabitation is more than having sex and sharing a residence, but must be a relationship akin to a marriage.

The Supreme Court granted cert and affirmed the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme Court reached its finding in much the same way as the Court of appeals.   In this case, Mother and foster child shared a home, but it was not their home.  They did not share expenses, nor did they hold themselves out as a married couple.  The relationship was also temporary; there was no sign of permanence.  The Court indicated that the correct question for the trial court to consider is not the sharing of a residence or the existence of a sexual relationship, but whether cohabitation occurred.

Full opinion available at:  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Myers2102111.pdf

Property Division is to be Equitable not Equal and Alimony Must have a Conclusion

Boyer v. Boyer, 2011 UT App 141 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 5, 2011)

Husband and Wife divorced.  Husband was awarded his retirement and the business.  He was further awarded a majority of the debt and was ordered to pay alimony.  Wife appealed the property division claiming she should be awarded a portion of the business and Husband’s retirement.  She also appealed the alimony award arguing that the Court failed to consider husband’s fault, (Husband had given wife a STD) and wife’s health.  Wife also appealed the Court’s prospective downward adjustments to alimony.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the property division, finding that while not equal as to the individual parts was equitable when evaluating the entire award.  As to alimony, The Court of Appeals found that there was no need to analyze Wife’s health, because that is not one of the statutory factors.  The Court did not have to analyze fault because it is an optional factor (“Court may consider fault”).  However, the Court remanded the award for further findings as to the prospective downward adjustments (which the Court of Appeals found would be appropriate and consistent with rehabilitative alimony, the trial simply needed to categorize the alimony award).  The Court of Appeals further remanded for findings as to the date of conclusion of alimony. 

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/boyer050511.pdf

Court Always Retains Ability to Modify Alimony and Alimony Award Can Never Exceed the Recipients Needs

Sellers v. Sellers, 2010 UT App 393 (Utah Court of Appeals December 30, 2010).

In the Decree of Divorce the trial court ordered that neither party was awarded alimony either at the time of the Decree or in the future.  Wife appealed.  Wife further appealed the finding that Husband owed no alimony.  The basis of her appeal was that the trial court made insufficient findings as to Husband’s ability to earn.  (Wife appealed on additional grounds, but failed to properly preserve those grounds at the trial level).  

The Court of Appeals determined that the regardless of the trial court’s order, the court may always modify alimony based on statute, UCA 30-3-5(8); and no divorce decree can change the statute.  As to the zero alimony award, it was shown that wife had sufficient income to meet her needs and did not qualify for alimony; the Court need not determine a party’s ability to pay if the other party’s needs are already being met.  “Regardless of the ability of the payor spouse to pay more, the recipient souse’s need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award.”

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/sellers123010.pdf

Alimony Must be Based on Sufficient Findings and Alimony Cannot Exceed Needs

Fish v. Fish, 2010 UT App. 292, (Utah Court of Appeals October 21, 2010).

Wife was awarded $800 per month in alimony.  Husband appealed.  He argued that the trial court had insufficient evidence to make findings as to the parties’ ability to earn and their needs.  The Court of Appeals found that testimony alone is sufficient evidence for imputation of income, and that Husband’s enrollment in a Technical College did not preclude imputation of income.  If a party already has basic job skills, he cannot rely on the schooling to avoid the imputation of income.  However, the findings of the trial court did not support the level of income imputed to husband as required by U.C.A. 78B-12-203(7)(b) (2008).  Without such findings, the trial court cannot impute income.  Additionally, the trial court made no findings as to Husband’s ability to pay and therefore the alimony award was an abuse of discretion and reversed.  The Court also found ability to earn cannot be based on monthly income alone, but must be based on the U.C.A. 78B-12-203(7)(b) factors, reversing the trial court’s finding that wife’s ability to earn directly correlates with her current income. 

Lastly, simply because the parties combined needs exceed their combined incomes does not prove that the parties’ standard of living is not commensurate with the standard of living at the time of the marriage, it simply proves that the cost to sustain two households is greater than the cost to sustain one.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/fish102110.pdf

Remarriage Does Not Bar Retroactive Alimony

Ostermiller v. Ostermiller, 2010 UT 43, (Utah Supreme Court May 28, 2010).

In the final order of the District Court, Husband was ordered to pay retroactive alimony to Wife even though she had remarried by the time the award was made.  The district court also denied Wife a portion of the rental income acquired during separation, and denied Father child support during the temporary separation.  Both appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals.  The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the rental payments and the child support for failure to marshal.  The court of appeals also reversed the award of retroactive alimony because wife was remarried when the award was made.  Both parties requested certiorari to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Reversed the court of appeals and found that remarriage does not bar a retroactive alimony award.  Further, it affirmed the court of appeals denial of wife’s claim for rental income because of her failure to marshal.  Lastly, the Court Reversed and Remanded husband’s child support claims, because the hearing in which the district court ruled on his child support claim was not the type of hearing where a transcript is made nor would such a transcript be helpful to deciding the issue of child support.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Ostermiller052810.pdf

Must Do More Than Merely State Income of the Payor Spouse to be Entitled to Alimony

Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App. 136, (Utah Court of Appeals May 27, 2010).

Divorce Decree ordred Husband was ordered to pay $230 alimony and $1797 per month in child support.  Alimony was to terminate when wife obtained full time work.  Wife appeals the Alimony award, the award of attorney fees, and the failure of the trial court to order reimbursement of the payments made toward the marital home.

As to the termination of alimony, the Court of Appeals found a court must do more than simply evaluate the payor spouse’s income.  They must also make findings as to the payor’s needs and expenditures as the trial court did in this case.  The trial court additionally correctly imputed Husband at the income of a previous job, because his loss of the job was based on his voluntary failure to comply with employment requirements.  The court’s ruling as to alimony is affirmed. 

As to attorney fees, this matter is Reversed and Remanded to determine what fees are suit fees (incurred establish an order) and which are enforcement fees (incurred to enforce orders).  Fees to establish an order are based on ability to pay, but enforcement fees are based on unnecessarily incurred fees because of another’s actions. 

As to the mortgage payment, Husband filed for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy proceedings attached the home and took jurisdiction over the home.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s find that it did not have jurisdiction to grant Wife’s request.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/connell052710.pdf

Common Residence + Sexual Contact + Husband-Wife Relationship≠ Cohabitation

Myers v. Myers, 2010 UT App. 74, (Utah Court of Appeals, April 1, 2010).

Husband and Wife were divorced and Husband was ordered to pay alimony.  After the divorce, Wife never had a permanent home, but often stayed with her parents.  Husband alleged, and the trial court found, that wife, while in her parents home, engaged in sexual contact with a foster child living in her parents home.  Husband moved to terminate alimony based on cohabitation with the foster child.  The trial court found cohabitation based on a common residence and sexual contact.  Wife Appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, finding that the Court failed to establish that Wife and the foster child engaged in a relationship akin to a husband-wife relationship.  The Court found that Husband failed to show Wife shared expenses with the foster child, shared decision-making, shared space, or shared meals.  The Court found that, Husband had shown that Wife and foster child conducted themselves as boyfriend and girlfriend and not as husband and wife.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/myers040110.pdf  

Again, Fault is Not a Factor in Alimony, and Failure to Preserve = Wavier

Fairbanks v. Fairbanks, 2010 UT 31, (Utah Court of Appeals, February 11, 2010).

Husband and wife were divorced Court awarded Wife alimony and her premarital property. Husband appealed. 

Husband argued that he too had made premarital contributions and the trial court did not compensate him.  The Court of Appeals found that Husband failed to preserve this issue and refused to consider any arguments on this issue. 

Alimony.  Husband also argued that Wife should not have awarded alimony based on her fault in the breakdown of the marriage.  The Court disagreed with husband and affirmed the trial court, finding that fault is not a factor in awarding alimony (because the legislature has not defined it).  Further, the Court found that if fault was a factor, Wife had insufficient fault in this case.  Specifically (1) Wife’s refusal to engage in sexual relations after  Husband to her he felt like he had been raped was not cruel treatment; (2) because the parties mutually agreed that Wife would move, there was no desertion; and (3) Wife’s failure to give Husband financial support because she had no surplus does not qualify as neglect.

Husband argued that the trial court improperly admitted evidence.  The Court of Appeals made no ruling on these issues because Husband failed to object at the time the evidence was offered at trial, and thereby, waived any objection.

Concurrence: We should consider fault as a factor, but since we rely on precedent, we cannot consider it.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/fairbanks021110.pdf

Student Support Contracts are Enforceable So long as they Satisfy the Normal Conditions Imposed on Post Nuptial Contracts

d
Ashby v. Ashby, 2010 UT 7, (Utah Supreme Court, February 9, 2010).

Husband attended undergraduate studies in Utah while Wife worked.  They agreed that he would continue graduate studies in St. Louis and Wife would work while he studied in an effort to achieve a future higher standard of living.  At divorce, wife brought claims of unjust enrichment and breach of student support contract.  The trial court dismissed these claims and wife brought a separate civil claim, which the trial court also dismissed.  Wife appealed.  The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissals and Husband Petitioned and The Utah Supreme Court granted Certiorari.

The Court found that the unjust enrichment claim failed under Martinez.  Finding that any unjust enrichment issue should addressed with alimony.  However, the Court found that the Student Support Contract claim does survive, but that she must bring the claim in the divorce action.  The Court additionally finds that Alimony is not the exclusive remedy to breach of a student support contract, and that Alimony is insufficient in some cases to award the appropriate remedy, such as expectation damages.  As such, the Court affirms the appellate court’s reversal of the dismissal in the civil action.  The Court further instructs the trial court that prior to addressing alimony, it must asses whether there is a postnuptial contract.  If so, it should grant the appropriate remedy prior to making an alimony award or dividing property.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Ashby020910.pdf

Divorce: Separate Property Remains Separate in the Absence of Enhancement

Soderborg v. Soderborg, 2009 UT App. 359, (Utah Court of Appeals, December 3, 2009).

Husband inherited two properties. When received, they were in poor shape and husband worked several years to make them profitable. After they became so, Husband spent a large amount of time managing the properties. Upon divorce, the Court awarded the properties to husband. Wife Appeals.

Wife argues that Husband’s labor spent in making the properties profitable and in managing the properties was a marital asset and as such, the marital estate is entitled to reimbursement of the work or, in the alternative, an interest in the properties. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Wife and affirmed the trial court finding that Husband inherited the properties. As an inheritance, it overcomes the presumption that it is marital property and remains separate. Wife makes no argument that she enhanced, maintained, or protected the property as such, the Court ordered it remain separate. The Court found that wife had no claim for husband’s labor and time spent on the properties.

Additionally, Wife argued that she was entitled to alimony. However, the Court again disagreed and affirmed, finding that while Wife physician may not have formerly released her to work, she provided no evidence that she had requested such a release because she of that her ability to work was not adequately shown to be impaired.

Full Decision available http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/soderborg120309.pdf

Alimony: Fault No Longer a Factor When Considering Alimony

Mark v. Mark, 2009 UT App. 374, (Utah Court of Appeals December 10, 2009).

Wife earned significantly more than Husband. Husband was in school was to complete his degree in one year. The trial court awarded husband $1200 per month as rehabilitative alimony for one year, and denied his request for attorney fees. Husband appealed.

Husband argued that the court failed to make adequate findings to support the alimony award, that the alimony should be permanent (instead of rehabilitative) and that considering fault was inappropriate. The appellate court Reversed the trial court’s alimony award finding without adequate findings the Appellate Court could not determine the validity of the award. The Court further found that Husband had weak employment prospects and that it was unlikely that he could earn enough to maintain the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. Thus, the award of only rehabilitative alimony was an abuse of their discretion. Finally, because the policy of alimony is to provide support and not to reward or punish, adjusting any award because of fault is inappropriate. Remanded to trial court for further findings all factors, but eliminating fault as a factor

Court Affirmed the non-award of attorney fees. The Court found that the trial court must only make findings if it makes an award of attorney fees. If there is not award, there is not requirement to make findings.

DISSENT: The trial court should consider fault. The legislature has given the courts the factor of fault and failing to consider it simply because it is not defined is replacing the legislature’s judgment with our own.

Full Decision available http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/mark121009.pdf

Alimony: Imputed Income Must Be Based on More Than Mere Conjecture

Hawks v. Hawks, 2009 UT App. 149, (Utah Court of Appeals, June 4, 2009).

Trial Court imputed Wife's income at minimum wage of part-time work. Husband appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. The trial court must consider (1) the financial condition and needs of the recipient spouse, (2) the recipient's earning capacity, and (3) the ability of the payor spouse to provide support. When considering the recipient's earning capacity, the court may impute income. However, imputed income cannot be premised upon mere conjecture, but demands a careful and precise assessment requiring detailed findings. The trial court had determined Wife's need, Husband's ability to pay and based her capacity to earn on the difference between the two. Because the trial court had failed to make adequate findings their imputation of income was reversed and the Court found that there was nothing that suggested that wife was not able to work full time at minimum wage. As such she was imputed income of minimum wage on a full time basis. The Court than deducted the added amount from the alimony award.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/hawks060409.pdf

Divorce: Judicial Statements Without findings Cannot be the “Law of the Case;” and Court Cannot Disregard Admissions

Kotter v. Kotter, 2009 UT App. 60, ---P.3d---, (Utah Court of Appeals, March 5, 2009).

Bart Kotter was ordered to pay Elizabeth Vienna (Kotter) alimony and $800,000 for half of the value of the parties’ business. A previous judge conducted a judge-led arbitration off-the-record in which he considered only the final award of the parties’ business. The judge awarded the business to Husband and indicated that half the value should be awarded to Wife, along with alimony. The judge ruled that based on the previous judge’s statements as to alimony and the cost of the business, to be law of the case, in spite of the lack of findings. He also dismissed Husband’s motion for summary judgment which was based on Wife’s failure to respond to Request for Admissions. Husband appealed to the Utah State Court of Appeals. 

The Court Reversed and Remanded the case and found that because the previous judge did not make the requisite findings to support alimony or the business valuation. So, there was no “law of the case.” As such, the Court reversed both rulings.

The Court also found that the issues of alimony and business valuation were settled because Wife failed to respond to a Request for Admissions. Wife conceded that she had not responded; and, neither she nor her counsel ever requested that the admissions be amended. Therefore, they were deemed admitted, and the Court instructed the lower court to enter summary judgment.


The more important point is that even without the admission, Wife failed to provide her monthly accounting and provided no evidence as to her income.  Without evidence on her monthly income and expenses the Court could not make any award of alimony.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/kotter030509.pdf

Income to Which a Payor Spouse Would Receive But For His Bad Acts May Be Imputed To Him

Young v. Young, ---P.3d---, 2009 UT App. 3, (Utah Court of Appeals, January 2, 2009).

Darrel Edward Young (Husband) was incarcerated at the time he became eligible for social security benefits. Because of Husband’s incarceration for a felony conviction he was not permitted to receive his benefits. However, Willa Mae Young (Wife), Darrell’s ex-wife filed for increase in spousal support in Utah’s First District Court. Wife claimed that husband’s recent eligibility for benefits was a substantial change in circumstances and that the benefit amount that he would receive should be calculated as income. The trial court agreed and changed the spousal support from $50 to $600, based on the eligibility. Husband appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals.

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's opinion. The Court found that the receipt of retirement benefits or social security can constitute a change in circumstances sufficient for a modification. Additionally, but for husband’s bad acts leading to his incarceration, he would receive the Social Security benefit. Lastly, based on the Husband’s imputed income and now the new income that he would be receiving from Social Security, his income is now 70% of the parties’ gross income and as such he was ordered to pay 70% of the combined attorney fees.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/young010209.pdf

Court May Terminate Alimony Retroactively Based on Cohabitation

Black v. Black, 199 P.3d 371, 2008 UT App. 465, (Utah Court of Appeals, December 18, 2008).

Kim S. Black (Wife) and Jon Cornell Black (Husband) were married in 1980 and divorced in 1989. In June of 2001, Husband filed his first Petition to Modify the Decree to terminate alimony. Husband served interrogatories on Wife. One of the questions listed, asked Wife to list any individuals residing in her home. She failed to list her cohabitant Mr. Tomlin. Thereafter, Wife attempted to conceal the cohabitation. In 2005, Husband learned of the cohabitation and amended his petition to include it as grounds for termination of alimony. The trial court terminated alimony retroactively to the date of the original petition (relying on UCA § 78B-12-112). Wife appealed.

The Appellate court affirmed the trial court. However, the Court found that while the reliance on UCA § 78B-12-112 was misplaced in this case and should have instead used UCA § 30-3-5(10). UCA § 30-3-35(10) requires that alimony be terminated immediately upon establishment of cohabitation. However, the exact moment of cohabitation is difficult to determine. The statute is also silent as to retroactivity. This silence allows the trial court to decide the appropriate reach of the termination order based on the facts in this case. Based on Wife’s egregious attempts to conceal her cohabitation, the award of retroactive termination was well within the trial court’s discretion and is left undisturbed upon appellate review.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/black121808.pdf

Divorce: Give the Court Sufficient Evidence. Otherwise, Your Award Could Be Overturned.

Leppert v. Leppert ---P.3d ---, 2009 UT App. 10, (Utah Court of Appeals, January 16, 2009).

The parties were awarded a bifurcated divorce in 2004. A temporary support order was in place from 2004 until 2006 when husband requested that the court modify the temporary order, which resulted in trial. The parties appealed on several grounds.

Wife appealed the trial court findings as to imputed income, alimony, division of property, and division of debt. Husband appealed the trial court's decision to separate the debts as to the date of separation instead of the date of divorce.

Imputation of Income: The Court relied on the trial court's extensive findings as to wife's employability and estimated hourly rate. Because of the findings, the Court chose not to disturb the trial court's order as to imputation of income.

As to alimony, division of personal property, royalty payments, and division of debt, the Court found that the trial court failed to make adequate findings. Because of the lack of findings, the Appellate Court reversed the awards and remanded the issues for further findings.

Attorney fees: The Court remanded the award and noted that courts must base and award of attorney fees on the need of the moving party, the ability of the other to pay, and the reasonableness of the requested amount. The Court also remanded the issue of attorney fees because of the lack of findings of the trial court.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/leppert011509.pdf