Donnelly v. Donnelly
2013 UT App 84
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Husband and Wife married in 1996 and had three children; ongoing discord during the marriage.
- The couple separated in January 2005 and Husband filed for divorce in February 2005.
- District court issued a Temporary Order in April 2005 allocating custody, child support, and temporary alimony, and requiring Husband to cover children's medical insurance.
- Wife relocated to New Jersey in June 2005 with the children; the youngest child diagnosed with autism later.
- Trial occurred September 2–4, 2009; court awarded Wife sole custody, imputed income to Wife, and ordered Husband to pay child support and alimony; retirement-account valuation issues were raised post-trial.
- Supplemental proceedings led to a December 2009 decision valuing Husband's retirement account as of separation and a March 2010 Decree of Divorce incorporating these rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony: whether temporary alimony awards were proper | Husband contends the court failed to consider his income/ability to pay and Wife's potential income; argues inadequate findings. | Court did consider income and needs; findings were sufficient given discretion. | Issue not preserved; no reversal of temporary alimony orders. |
| Amended temporary alimony: whether the December 2005 order was an abuse of discretion | Husband claims it ignored Wife's actual needs, parental support, and travel issues. | Court appropriately reduced alimony after reviewing updated finances; preserved issues were limited. | Court acted within substantial discretion; no abuse found. |
| Permanent alimony: whether the $1,000 monthly alimony was an abuse of discretion | Husband asserts failure to limit Wife's needs and misallocation of post-separation autism expenses. | Court properly considered Wife's living situation, parental support, and post-separation needs. | Alimony award affirmed; court properly weighed relevant factors. |
| Travel expenses: whether denial of parental travel reimbursement was proper under relocation statute | Statute requires reimbursement unless noncustodial parent is in contempt; denial was improper. | Statute permits district court discretion when arrears exist and no contempt finding. | Discretionary denial supported; no error given substantial arrearage. |
| Valuation of retirement plan: whether to value as of separation or decree | Separation date valuation was improper for a marital asset. | District court gave detailed, adequate reasons for deviation from the default rule. | Valuation as of separation affirmed; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rappleye v. Rappleye, 855 P.2d 260 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (general rule to value at decree; deviations require detailed findings)
- Berger v. Berger, 713 P.2d 695 (Utah 1985) (addresses valuation timing in divorce proceedings)
- Olson v. Olson, 2010 UT App 22, 226 P.3d 751 (Utah App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for alimony decisions)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 2008 UT App 11, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah App. 2008) (trial court has significant discretion in fashioning temporary support)