560 P.3d 151
Utah Ct. App.2024Background
- Amanda and Randy Godfrey married in 2006, have three minor children, and accrued marital assets including three properties and Randy’s pre-marital business, High Country Lawn Care & Snow Removal.
- Amanda filed for divorce in 2018, and issues of property valuation, alimony, child support, and division of business proceeds went to a three-day bench trial in June 2021.
- Prior to trial, the parties agreed Amanda would get the St. George Property, and Randy the Snowview and Oakridge Properties, but disagreed on equitable value and division of those assets; Randy sold the Snowview Property prior to trial.
- Amanda had little paid work history, contributing primarily as a homemaker and supporting Randy's business; Randy received a $1,300,000 sale price for High Country, a business started before the marriage.
- Both parties disagreed on the date for property valuations and on whether Amanda was entitled to share in the High Country proceeds; evidence of Amanda’s business involvement and income potential was presented.
- The trial court favored valuation at the date of the divorce decree, awarded Amanda half the post-marital appreciation of High Country (with a premarital offset to Randy), and imputed Amanda’s income at minimum wage for support calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Godfrey (Appellant, Randy) | Godfrey (Appellee, Amanda) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Updated appraisals/substitution of experts | Should not allow late appraisals/substitution; unfair | Updated appraisals necessary due to trial delay, both parties benefit | Court allowed updated appraisals and expert substitution; no abuse of discretion |
| Property valuation date | Use December 2019 or April 2020 | Use date of final divorce decree | Valuation as of trial date (June 2021) upheld |
| Amanda’s imputed income | Should be higher, based on 2019 vocational report, rent, trust | Vocational report outdated; only minimal income possible | Imputed at minimum wage; court’s findings reasonable and supported |
| Division of High Country proceeds | Business was premarital; Amanda not entitled | Substantial marital contribution; entitled to half appreciation | Amanda entitled to half the marital (post-marital) appreciation, with offsets |
| Savings account division | Court failed to address Randy’s objection | Not raised for decision | Not preserved for appeal; court declines to address |
Key Cases Cited
- Dahl v. Dahl, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah 2015) (trial courts have broad discretion in discovery matters)
- Petrzelka v. Goodwin, 461 P.3d 1134 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (property typically valued at time of divorce decree or trial)
- Lindsey v. Lindsey, 392 P.3d 968 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (presumption that marital property is divided equally; exceptions for equitable distribution of separate property)
- Tilleman v. Tilleman, 549 P.3d 65 (Utah Ct. App. 2024) (income imputation for support focused on ability to earn, not actual underemployment)
- Rothwell v. Rothwell, 531 P.3d 225 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (courts need not force an ex-spouse to use property for income if not done during marriage)