McPherson v. McPherson
2011 UT App 382
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- MePherson and McPherson married in 1991 and had two children; marriage later deteriorated due to alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and an extramarital affair.
- Husband’s income rose significantly after 2007 when promoted to PSSR, averaging $47,000/year (1991–2006) but $172,620/year (2007–2009).
- Temporary orders in 2009 required Husband to pay $1,965 child support and $2,425 alimony per month.
- Husband was terminated from Wheeler Machinery in late 2009 after a workplace incident related to the affair and later earned $4,680/month as a diesel mechanic.
- Husband sought modification of temporary support in 2010, with the trial court initially denying adjustments; a bifurcated divorce followed with a final alimony/child-support order.
- On remand, the trial court reduced future support but refused retroactive modification; the appellate court reversed and remanded for recalculation considering tax obligations and actual ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony calculation: gross vs net income | MePherson argues net income should be used. | McPherson contends gross income is appropriate. | Court must use net income and tax obligations in calculation; remand for recalculation. |
| Retroactive modification of temporary support | MePherson seeks retroactive reduction. | McPherson argues no retroactive modification allowed. | Trial court erred in denying retroactive modification; remand to modify retroactively. |
| Consideration of tax obligations in alimony ability to pay | Tax obligations must be considered in ability to pay. | Tax considerations were not explicitly addressed. | Remand to explicitly account for tax obligations in determining alimony. |
| Explicit findings supporting ability to pay | Record lacks explicit rationale for income imputation and obligations. | Findings implicitly reflect ability to pay. | Remand for explicit, detailed findings explaining the court’s reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willey v. Willey, 951 P.2d 226 (Utah 1997) (abuse of discretion standard for alimony awards)
- Rehn v. Rehn, 974 P.2d 306 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (factors governing alimony; need for adequate findings)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 754 P.2d 952 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (requirement of detailed subsidiary facts to support findings)
- Ruhsam v. Ruhsam, 742 P.2d 123 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (clear rationale for alimony level tied to criteria)
- Paffel v. Paffel, 732 P.2d 96 (Utah 1986) (tax considerations relevant to ability to pay)
- Andrus v. Andrus, 169 P.3d 754 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (need for present-reality basis in income imputation)
- Batty v. Batty, 153 P.3d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (court may adjust standards of living and adjust obligations)
- Young v. Young, 201 P.3d 301 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (modification based on changed circumstances; voluntary underemployment considerations)
- Proctor v. Proctor, 773 P.2d 1389 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (modification of support in light of change in circumstances)
- Wall v. Wall, 157 P.3d 341 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (statutory authority to modify temporary support retroactively)