McPherson v. McPherson
2013 UT App 302
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In August 2010, trial court ordered Husband to pay Wife $800/month in alimony.
- We held in McPherson v. McPherson that the trial court erred by using gross income and not accounting for taxes, and by not assessing ability to pay.
- We remanded to recalculate alimony accounting for tax obligations and actual ability to pay, noting trial court discretion to adjust for equalization and other factors.
- On remand, the trial court claimed the appellate opinion caused confusion about net income, and relied on a financial declaration showing Wife’s income as a basis for its decision.
- The trial court concluded Husband’s net income was $3270/month and recalculated alimony, substantially reducing Wife’s alimony and creating a ~ $27,000 alimony overpayment judgment against Wife.
- The court acknowledged dissatisfaction with the result but felt compelled by the remand instructions and the appellate opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether net income, not gross, must be used for alimony on remand. | McPherson contends net income should be used per remand guidance. | McPherson argues the court should rely on the figure found on remand, even if the evidence is limited. | Remand requires consideration of net income and tax obligations; not bound to gross. |
| Whether trial court correctly applied evidence on remand to determine Husband's net income. | Wife asserts reliable net income evidence existed and should guide alimony. | Husband asserts evidence was insufficient or not properly presented on remand. | Trial court must evaluate best available evidence on remand; not constrained to a single figure. |
| Whether the overpayment judgment and offset against reduced alimony were proper. | Wife argues offsetting overpayment against reduced alimony is inappropriate given her limited means. | Husband contends the overpayment and offset are appropriate under the remand framework. | Overpayment recovery and offset must be reconsidered in light of net income and ability to pay. |
| Whether appellate remand foreclosed the trial court from making new findings based on best evidence. | Wife maintains trial court should use best evidence available, not rigidly follow prior missteps. | Husband argues the remand decision constrained the trial court to the appellate directive. | Trial court may make appropriate findings on remand using best evidence available. |
Key Cases Cited
- McPherson v. McPherson, 2011 UT App 382 (Utah Court of Appeals 2011) (alimony must reflect tax obligations and actual ability to pay)
- Halladay v. Cluff, 739 P.2d 643 (Utah Ct.App. 1987) (trial courts better positioned to evaluate case nuances on remand)
- American Fork City v. Singleton, 57 P.3d 1124 (Utah App. 2002) (trial courts have primary responsibility for findings of fact)
- Bailey v. Bayles, 52 P.3d 1158 (2002 UT 58) (appellate court should not substitute its own findings of fact)