420 P.3d 106
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- John and Jacqueline Christensen divorced in 2008; decree required John to pay $1,100/month alimony.
- Decree included a stipulation: "When [Wife] becomes eligible to receive Social Security, alimony will be adjusted to equalize the Social Security incomes of both of the parties," with an example showing income received by each party being equalized by an alimony payment.
- Wife became eligible for Social Security in 2015; neither party had yet begun receiving benefits when John moved to reduce alimony to effectuate equalization.
- A commissioner declined to adjust alimony as premature; the district court sustained that ruling, concluding equalization was triggered only once parties actually received Social Security benefits and the decree did not supplant existing alimony.
- John appealed, arguing the decree required adjustment upon Wife’s eligibility and that the equalization payment should replace (not supplement) his existing alimony.
Issues
| Issue | John’s Argument | Jacqueline’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Social Security equalization is triggered by eligibility or by actual receipt of benefits | Triggered when Wife becomes eligible | Triggered only when parties actually begin receiving Social Security income | Court: Trigger upon actual receipt; decree references "Social Security incomes" (income received), not theoretical amounts |
| Whether the equalization payment replaces or supplements existing alimony | Equalization supplants and reduces John’s prior alimony obligation | Equalization is an adjustment and may supplement existing alimony | Court: No clear language replacing prior alimony; "adjusted" and example suggest an alimony payment that does not necessarily supplant existing obligation |
| Whether extrinsic evidence or evidentiary hearing was required to resolve ambiguity | (Implicit) needed to clarify parties’ intent when ambiguous | (Implicit) same; but no party requested such hearing below | Court: Ambiguity existed, but parties treated decree as unambiguous; because no extrinsic evidence was presented below, court reviewed the competing plain-meaning interpretations and did not err as a matter of law |
| Whether appellate court should consider plain error for failure to hold evidentiary hearing | John did not preserve plain-error argument on appeal | Wife opposed plain-error review | Court: Declined to invoke plain-error sua sponte; John did not preserve or argue plain error, so not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Jensen v. Skypark Landowners Ass’n, 299 P.3d 609 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (appellant bears burden to show trial court error)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 294 P.3d 600 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (divorce-decree interpretation follows plain-meaning rule absent ambiguity)
- Lyngle v. Lyngle, 831 P.2d 1027 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (when decree ambiguous, extrinsic evidence of intent may be considered)
- Jensen v. Jensen, 173 P.3d 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (separate property may be used to satisfy alimony obligations)
- Nelson v. Liberty Acquisitions Servicing LLC, 374 P.3d 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (appellant must convince court that trial court committed error)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (plain-error doctrine described)
- State v. Blubaugh, 904 P.2d 688 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (court will not consider plain error sua sponte)
- Tobler v. Tobler, 337 P.3d 296 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (appellate attorney fees usually awarded when fees were awarded below and prevailing party prevails on appeal)