Allen v. Allen
2014 UT App 27
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Colter Thomas Allen and Lacee C. Allen were married on June 13, 2009 and are the parents of a daughter.
- Husband filed for divorce in 2010; after a bench trial in 2012, the court awarded Husband physical custody, denied alimony and attorney fees to Wife, and awarded the marital home and debt to Husband.
- Wife appeals, challenging the adequacy of the trial court’s written findings to support custody, asset division, alimony, and attorney fees.
- Trial evidence included accusations of Wife’s late-night conduct and an affair, and Husband’s claim that the home was bought pre-marriage with no significant equity.
- Wife claimed limited income and alleged financial need; Husband argued he had higher, more reliable income and shouldered mortgage obligations.
- On appeal, the court affirmed custody and asset division but reversed and remanded regarding alimony and attorney fees for further findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the alimony findings adequate? | Wife argues insufficient factual findings support denial of alimony. | Allen asserts trial court considered factors; though findings terse, conclusion proper. | Alimony findings vacated and remanded for detailed analysis. |
| Are the attorney fees findings adequate? | Wife contends court failed to assess need, ability to pay, and reasonableness of fees. | Allen maintains discretion with findings; record supports denial subject to more detail. | Attorney fees findings set aside and remanded for fuller analysis. |
| Was the custody award adequately supported by statutory factors? | Wife argues court failed to address best interests, bonding, and past conduct per Utah statutes. | Allen asserts court balanced factors and both parents capable; stability favored Husband. | Custody affirmed; court’s findings deemed adequate in addressing relevant factors. |
| Was the marital asset division adequately supported | Wife challenges award of the home to Husband as not properly valued/allocated. | Allen contends four-step process followed; equity found negligible and Husband awarded home accordingly. | Marital home award sustained; findings adequate to support division. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Roberts, 835 P.2d 198 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (custody framework requires articulable factual findings)
- Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (custody decisions may require choosing between good and better)
- Smith v. Smith, 726 P.2d 423 (Utah 1986) (custody factors need articulation)
- Rehn v. Rehn, 974 P.2d 306 (Utah Ct.App.1999) (three alimony factors; detailed findings required unless facts are clear)
- Baker v. Baker, 866 P.2d 540 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (require subsidiary facts to disclose reasoning for alimony)
- Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alimony findings must disclose steps leading to outcome)
- Weise v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 2010 UT 4 (Utah) (preservation and notice requirements for trial issues)
- Pearson v. South Jordan City, 275 P.3d 1035 (Utah App. 2012) (preservation of issues requires trial court consideration)
- McPherson v. McPherson, 318 P.3d 773 (Utah Ct.App.2018) (remand guidance for addressing issues not adequately analyzed)