Kidd v. Kidd
2014 UT App 26
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Marriage from March 13, 1980; divorce finalized March 9, 2012 after 32 years.
- Four unresolved issues at trial: alimony; repayment of $4,505 withdrawn from a joint account; division of Husband's thrift savings plan (TSP); removal of Wife from the mortgage on the marital home.
- Bench trial held November 18, 2011; memorandum decision issued with findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Alimony award of $2,182.50 per month, retroactive to separation in October 2010, with back alimony of $9,555.
- Property division included a $4,505 credit to Wife for repayment coerced by Husband; TSP to be equally divided by cash value; Wife to receive a specified share of retirement accounts via QDROs.
- Mortgage removal: court ordered Husband to remove Wife’s name from the mortgage within 90 days of the memorandum decision; final decree dated March 9, 2012 incorporated the settlement and memorandum decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony basis sufficient for need and ability to pay | Kidd contends needs basis and equalization lack adequate factual support | Kidd argues alimony exceeds needs and ability to pay | No clear error; alimony supported by findings and evidence |
| Retroactive alimony validity | Kidd claims no accrual of expenses during months in question | Wife’s needs and equities support retroactivity | Alimony retroactive finding affirmed; issue not frivolous to reconsider on appeal |
| Credit for $4,505 withdrawal as coercion-affected repayment | Kidd challenges coercion finding | Wife coerced repayment due to emotional distress | Court’s findings supported; credit to Wife affirmed; coercion conclusion upheld |
| Method and date for TSP division | Settlement intended equal division; shares vs cash value dispute | Division by cash value as of Oct 28, 2011 appropriate | Trial court did not abuse discretion; cash-value division affirmed based on ambiguity and timing |
| Mortgage-removal obligation timing and feasibility | Order to remove Wife from mortgage within 90 days was inappropriate or infeasible | Testimony supported six-to-twelve month period; refinancing feasible within period | Order to remove Wife’s name affirmed; feasible under chosen timeframe; preserved issues not raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah App. 2008) (trial court discretion in property division; abuse of discretion required to overturn)
- Howell v. Howell, 806 P.2d 1209 (Utah Ct.App.1991) (avoid focusing solely on actual separation expenses when determining need)
- Chambers v. Chambers, 840 P.2d 841 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (preference for cash-out of non-employee spouse’s share in retirement plans)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 959 P.2d 1015 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (emphasizes cash-out and equitable distribution principles in retirement accounts)
- Arbogast Family Trust v. River Crossings, LLC, 238 P.3d 1035 (Utah 2010) (interpretation of rules and discretion in procedural incorporation by reference)
- Daines v. Vincent, 190 P.3d 1269 (Utah 2008) (contract interpretation in marital settlement contexts; ambiguity resolveable by court)