Chesley v. Chesley
402 P.3d 65
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Benjamin and Moriah Chesley married in 2007, had two children, and divorced after Moriah filed in 2014.
- During the marriage Moriah was not employed full time and later became a full‑time student working part time; she received government subsidies and some support from her father.
- At trial the court imputed to Moriah full‑time income ($13/hour → $2,253/month) and counted child‑support receipts, finding her monthly income $3,590; the court set Benjamin’s monthly income at $6,500.
- The trial court awarded Moriah $900/month alimony for 97 months (the length of the marriage) and awarded past‑due temporary alimony; Benjamin had not paid the temporary alimony.
- Benjamin moved to amend findings and for a new trial, arguing the court failed to make findings about Moriah’s needs; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the alimony award and remanded because the trial court’s findings did not adequately explain how Moriah’s demonstrated needs supported the $900 monthly award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court made adequate findings of recipient’s needs to support alimony | Moriah: trial court considered statutory factors and made sufficient findings | Benjamin: court failed to find Moriah’s specific needs and how $900 was calculated | Vacated and remanded for more detailed findings about Moriah’s demonstrated needs |
| Whether $900/month alimony was justified given incomes and expenses | Moriah: imputed income and subsidies leave a need for alimony | Benjamin: Moriah’s declared expenses (after allocable child‑care) may be less than her income, so no need for alimony | Court could not determine from record; remand required |
| Whether trial court properly evaluated payor’s ability to pay | Moriah: court found Benjamin could pay based on imputed income | Benjamin: court failed to make findings regarding his monthly expenses | Court noted ability to pay but remanded because recipient‑need findings were insufficient |
| Whether child‑care allocation affects need calculation | Benjamin: his required share of child‑care should reduce Moriah’s expenses and eliminate need | Moriah: court treated child‑care in overall assessment of needs | Court declined to decide on appeal; left child‑care expense determinations to trial court on remand |
Key Cases Cited
(Opinion cited several Utah Court of Appeals decisions, but those citations in the opinion do not have official reporter citations and therefore are not listed here.)