525 P.3d 534
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- Rayna and Glen Mintz divorced after a long marriage during which they regularly invested substantial income; after 2014 a large portion of Glen’s salary was deposited directly into joint investment accounts.
- Glen received employer cash awards (forgivable loans) that were deposited into investment accounts and created tax obligations; Glen later had an extramarital affair that he admitted cost about $75,000 of marital funds.
- The district court awarded Rayna alimony but excluded any allowance for historical investments and reduced her claimed entertainment expense; it also found the client list/“book of business” was an asset but concluded Glen did not own it.
- The court found $75,000 dissipated by Glen, stated Rayna was entitled to $37,500, but the distribution appendix omitted Rayna’s award and instead showed $37,500 to Glen.
- Rayna moved to enforce the decree seeking post‑trial appreciation on undivided investment accounts; the district court declined, concluding that the requested relief would amend the decree and it was divested of jurisdiction because an appeal had been filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rayna) | Defendant's Argument (Glen / Employer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony: inclusion of amounts for historical investments/savings | Investments were a standard practice that formed the marital standard of living; alimony should fund post‑divorce investments | Evidence insufficient; returns uncertain; investment income not a necessary living expense | Reversed in part: district court misapplied law; remanded to recalculate alimony to include historical investment contribution if supported by findings |
| Alimony: entertainment expense reduction | Claimed entertainment amount was for Rayna alone and supported by trial evidence | Court reduced amount based on presence of children and some shared expenses | Court held reduction was based on clearly erroneous facts; remand to clarify/correct entertainment allowance |
| Book of business (client list) as divisible marital asset | Rayna: Glens client list/book of business is a marital asset subject to division | Employer/Glen: client relationships and lists are owned/controlled by Employer; Glen was a W‑2 employee without ownership | Affirmed: court did not clearly abuse discretion; found Employer owned client relationships so Glen did not own a divisible book of business |
| Dissipation (affair spending) | Rayna: entitled to half of $75,000 dissipated ($37,500) and reimbursement | Glen: court found $75,000 dissipated but the decree/appended distribution is internally inconsistent | Remand for clarification/correction: court must reflect $75,000 dissipation and award Rayna $37,500 |
| Post‑trial appreciation on awarded investment accounts (motion to enforce) | Rayna: motion to enforce should award her proportional share of appreciation since trial | Glen: decree did not provide for post‑trial appreciation; granting it would amend decree; district court divested by appeal | Affirmed: relief sought would amend decree; district court lacked jurisdiction after notice of appeal |
| Cross‑appeal: imputing investment income to reduce alimony (Glen) | Glen: court should impute potential investment returns (e.g., 6%) to Raynas income when calculating alimony | Rayna: investment returns uncertain and historically reinvested; should not be treated as spendable income | Affirmed: district court acted within discretion in excluding potential investment income from alimony calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Bakanowski v. Bakanowski, 80 P.3d 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (investment/savings may be included in alimony if contributing to marital standard of living and were standard practice)
- Knowles v. Knowles, 509 P.3d 265 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (trial courts must assess expenses based on how parties historically allocated money)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 452 P.3d 1134 (Utah 2019) (standard of review and requirement that alimony findings be supported and within discretion)
- Bjarnson v. Bjarnson, 476 P.3d 145 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (misapplication of law is a de facto abuse of discretion)
- Eberhard v. Eberhard, 449 P.3d 202 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (trial courts must consider all income sources but have broad discretion whether to count them)
- Batty v. Batty, 153 P.3d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (property division should be addressed before alimony; income from property considered in alimony analysis)
- Cheves v. Williams, 993 P.2d 191 (Utah 1999) (trial court generally divested of jurisdiction by appeal, but narrow exceptions allow enforcement/clerical corrections)
- Leppert v. Leppert, 200 P.3d 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (alimony/ factual findings reversed when clearly erroneous)