476 P.3d 145
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- Hugh and Jennifer Bjarnson married in 2008; Hugh filed for divorce in 2016 and the final decree issued in 2019 after a bench trial.
- After separation, Jennifer moved into her mother’s fully furnished home rent-free, provided care for her mother, and listed a $1,000/month anticipated housing expense on her financial declaration.
- The district court awarded monthly alimony of $1,830 but, recognizing Jennifer paid no rent while living with her mother, ordered Hugh to pay $830/month now and to increase payments by $1,000/month (to $1,830) when “Jennifer secures her own housing.”
- Hugh appealed only the prospective aspect of the award (the conditional $1,000 future increase), arguing the court exceeded its discretion by ordering an increase based on an uncertain future event.
- The Court of Appeals held the prospective increase was legal error because the court made no finding that securing independent housing was certain to occur within a known timeframe; it vacated the prospective increase and remanded for appropriate findings and preservation of the issue for a future modification petition.
Issues
| Issue | Hugh's Argument | Jennifer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly ordered a prospective alimony increase conditioned on Jennifer "securing her own housing" | The prospective increase was improper because it depended on an uncertain future event and thus exceeded the court’s discretion | The increase was intended to restore Jennifer’s premarital standard of living; housing was not a mere future event and the court could account for expected housing costs (relying on Sauer) | Vacated the prospective increase. Prospective changes to alimony are disfavored and are proper only when the future event is certain to occur within a known timeframe; remand for findings and require a modification petition if housing changes occur |
| Whether Jennifer’s request for appellate attorney fees should be granted | N/A (Hugh is the prevailing party on appeal) | Sought fees under Utah R. App. P. 33 | Denied — appellant (Hugh) prevailed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Richardson, 201 P.3d 942 (Utah 2008) (prospective alimony changes appropriate only for future events certain to occur within a known timeframe)
- MacDonald v. MacDonald, 430 P.3d 612 (Utah 2018) (court may delay alimony determinations when future events are speculative and enter findings preserving modification claims)
- Boyer v. Boyer, 259 P.3d 1063 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (defines prospective change in alimony as anticipation of a future event materially changing circumstances)
- Sauer v. Sauer, 400 P.3d 1204 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (courts may consider reasonable housing costs when a payee temporarily has no housing expenses post-separation)
- Rule v. Rule, 402 P.3d 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (appellate review standard: trial courts have broad latitude on alimony but must act within legal bounds)