Bond v. Bond, 420 P.3d 53

Lisa and Mark Bond married in 1989; Lisa was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in 1995 and stopped working around 2012 after the parties agreed she should apply for Social Security disability.
Lisa filed for divorce in 2014; trial occurred in early 2016. The primary dispute concerned alimony and whether Lisa was capable of gainful employment.
Lisa testified she was physically unable to work due to MS; her long-time treating nurse practitioner likewise opined Lisa could not return to the workforce, though the practitioner conceded Lisa could use a computer, phone, drive, and perform basic daily activities.
Mark presented a vocational expert who opined Lisa could perform part-time, sedentary jobs (e.g., reception clerk, hotel desk clerk, reservation agent) with reasonable accommodations, with wages ranging from $9.61 to $12.87/hour and likely requiring only three to four hours per day.
The trial court credited the vocational expert, found Lisa could work 3 hours/day (15 hours/week) at $9.61/hour for 50 weeks/year, and imputed $600/month to Lisa; the court ordered Mark to pay $2,350/month alimony.
On appeal, Lisa challenged the imputation, arguing the evidence did not support the finding she could work three hours/day at $9.61/hour and that no specific employers or openings were identified.

Issue	Lisa's Argument	Mark's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imputing income to Lisa	Trial court lacked competent evidence to impute any income; Lisa and her nurse practitioner testified she could not work at all	Vocational expert testified Lisa could work part-time in sedentary positions with accommodations and provided wage ranges; court may impute based on employment potential	Affirmed — trial court’s imputation supported by competent evidence and not clearly erroneous
Whether testimony needed to identify a specific employer or job opening	Imputation improper because no witness identified a specific employer willing to hire under required accommodations	Statute and precedent allow imputation based on employment potential and probable earnings without naming a specific employer; vocational testimony about available job categories and market wages suffices	Rejected Lisa’s specificity claim; expert testimony about employers generally willing to accommodate was adequate

Kimball v. Kimball, 217 P.3d 733 (Utah Ct. App.) (deference to trial court factfinding; findings not disturbed unless clearly erroneous)
Connell v. Connell, 233 P.3d 836 (Utah Ct. App.) (trial courts have broad discretion in assessing spouse’s income and imputation)
Fish v. Fish, 242 P.3d 787 (Utah Ct. App.) (imputation permissible for underemployed spouse; statute on employment potential and probable earnings applies)
State v. Menzies, 845 P.2d 220 (Utah 1992) (existence of conflicting evidence alone does not overturn findings; review limited to clear error)
Busche v. Busche, 272 P.3d 748 (Utah Ct. App.) (imputation depends on availability of jobs in the relevant market for a person with party’s qualifications)
Barrani v. Barrani, 334 P.3d 994 (Utah Ct. App.) (appellate court does not reweigh credibility; leaves weight of evidence to trial court)
Kidd v. Kidd, 321 P.3d 200 (Utah Ct. App.) (finding clearly erroneous only if contrary to clear weight of evidence)
Oldroyd v. Oldroyd, 397 P.3d 645 (Utah Ct. App.) (trial courts have considerable discretion determining financial interests in divorce)