450 P.3d 1133
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Melvin and Janette divorced in 2008 pursuant to a mediated stipulation reflected in a Decree that awarded Janette alimony and child support according to schedules in Exhibit C and ordered Melvin to buy a $1,000,000 annuity for Janette within 36 months, naming her irrevocable beneficiary during her lifetime and with payout duration over 15 years.
- The Decree provided alimony payments "until the first of" Melvin’s death, expiration of 372 months, or Janette’s death; it did not expressly state remarriage would terminate alimony, though many other provisions expressly addressed remarriage for specific obligations.
- Janette remarried in 2014; she filed a petition to modify (alleging fraud) and a Show Cause Motion seeking contempt relief for Melvin’s alleged noncompliance (COLA, medical expenses, failure to buy the annuity, and 401(k) division). Melvin counter-petitioned seeking termination of alimony upon Janette’s remarriage under Utah Code § 30-3-5(9).
- A court commissioner and then the district court determined alimony did not terminate on remarriage; the court found the Decree’s structure and other remarriage provisions evidenced parties’ intent that alimony survive remarriage.
- The court found Melvin failed to timely purchase the annuity and entered a money judgment to compensate Janette but allowed Melvin to satisfy it by buying a lesser/shorter annuity and gave him credits for house-related payments; the court denied contempt on Janette’s claim for her personal out-of-pocket medical expenses and awarded Janette $9,480 in attorney fees for enforcing the Decree.
- On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed that alimony survives remarriage under the Decree, affirmed denial of contempt for Janette’s personal out-of-pocket medical costs, reversed the annuity judgment as an abuse of discretion and remanded for proper damages, affirmed the 401(k) resolution, and affirmed the attorney-fees award (but directed allowance of fees for appellate and remand enforcement work).
Issues
| Issue | Janette’s Argument | Melvin’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony terminated on Janette’s remarriage | Decree should be read according to statute: alimony presumed to terminate on remarriage absent specific provision; Decree ambiguous so termination applies | Decree does not specifically provide for termination on remarriage, so termination should follow statute § 30-3-5(9) | Alimony did not terminate on remarriage; Decree read as a whole shows parties intended alimony to survive remarriage (affirmed) |
| Whether Melvin must pay Janette’s personal out-of-pocket medical expenses | Decree language (7(b)) includes Janette’s uncovered medical expenses as part of property settlement, so Melvin must pay them | Decree distinguishes child’s out-of-pocket costs (paragraph 6) and does not obligate Melvin to pay Janette’s personal out-of-pocket costs | Court correctly denied contempt on this claim; Decree does not require Melvin to pay Janette’s personal out-of-pocket medical expenses (affirmed) |
| Proper remedy for Melvin’s failure to timely purchase the $1,000,000 annuity | Janette sought full compensation for loss of the ordered annuity stream and that any substitute must meet Decree terms (face value, beneficiary, >15-year payout) | Court’s judgment allowing purchase of a smaller, shorter annuity and credits for house payments was reasonable mitigation/credit | Trial court abused discretion: award lacked evidentiary support, improperly granted credits, and allowed substitute annuity that did not meet Decree terms; remand for judgment compensating Janette for actual loss (reversed in part) |
| Whether Melvin satisfied obligation to give Janette one-half of 401(k) | Janette contends she received less than one-half of the account value at decree entry and seeks remainder | Melvin says account was liquidated after market decline; he divided proceeds and paid Janette half ($8,885.52) | Court did not abuse discretion in finding Janette was made whole by the payment; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 855 P.2d 250 (Utah Ct. App.) (alimony presumed to terminate on remarriage)
- Lord v. Shaw, 682 P.2d 853 (Utah) (stating fixed-duration alimony alone does not necessarily except decree from statutory remarriage termination rule)
- Peirce v. Peirce, 994 P.2d 193 (Utah) (contract interpretation looks to reasonable expectations and the agreement as a whole)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 294 P.3d 600 (Utah Ct. App.) (decree interpretation is reviewed as contract interpretation)
- Austad v. Austad, 269 P.2d 284 (Utah) (historical recognition that alimony continues only while receiving spouse remains unmarried)
- Eames v. Eames, 735 P.2d 395 (Utah Ct. App.) (rejecting argument that age-duration language alone qualifies as a specific provision against remarriage termination)