508 P.3d 612
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Grant and Kristina Pankhurst married in 2011; Kristina filed for divorce in 2018 and stayed in Alaska with the parties’ three children.
- Parties stipulated (Dec 2019) that Kristina would have primary physical custody in Alaska; Grant could exercise up to 10 overnights/month at his option until he lived near the children.
- At trial Grant provided minimal financial documentation (one pay stub, one 2019 W-2) despite a pretrial order; historical tax returns (2013–2017) showed substantially higher historical earnings.
- The court found any income decrease was temporary, sanctioned Grant under rule 37(b) for failing to produce documents, and imputed income at $9,095.47/month based on historical returns.
- The court used a sole-custody child-support worksheet (Grant ordered to pay $1,625/month) because he had not exercised overnights in 2020, and awarded Kristina $1,500/month alimony after calculating ability and need using net incomes.
- Grant appealed imputation of income, the alimony award (argued to exceed need), and the use of a sole-custody child-support worksheet; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kristina) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly imputed income to Grant | Imputation appropriate: income dip was temporary; Grant failed to produce required docs so historical income is reliable. | Court should use Grant’s reduced current income; a finding of voluntary underemployment is required before imputing income. | Affirmed. Court may impute income based on evidentiary findings and may consider failure to produce documentation; voluntary-underemployment finding is not prerequisite. |
| Whether alimony award exceeded Kristina’s demonstrated need | $1,500/month is within Kristina’s need when using net (after-tax) income and proper calculations. | Award exceeds Kristina’s need (argues using gross income shows unmet need only $959). | Affirmed. Court relied on net incomes for need/ability to pay; alimony did not exceed demonstrated need. |
| Whether child support should have used joint custody worksheet | Sole-custody worksheet appropriate because Grant did not actually exercise overnights or contribute to expenses beyond child support. | Joint-custody worksheet required because stipulation awarded overnights exceeding 30% of the year. | Affirmed. Mere award of potential overnights is not enough; second element (actual contribution to expenses beyond child support) not shown and Grant had not exercised overnights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Anderson, 414 P.3d 1069 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review for child support and alimony decisions)
- Bond v. Bond, 420 P.3d 53 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (trial courts have broad discretion in assessing spouse income and imputation)
- Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2013) (appellate review deferential; heavy burden to show abuse of discretion)
- Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (older authority on imputing income requiring voluntary underemployment finding)
- Rayner v. Rayner, 316 P.3d 455 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (discussing statutory change to imputation analysis)
- Reller v. Argenziano, 360 P.3d 768 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (voluntary underemployment is relevant but not required for imputation; focus is evidentiary findings)
- Dahl v. Dahl, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah 2015) (appellant’s burden to overturn factual findings is high)
- Allen v. Allen, 483 P.3d 730 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (court may be affirmed on alternative grounds not challenged on appeal)
- Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, 402 P.3d 219 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (use of net vs. gross income in need/ability calculations)
- Spall-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 288 P.3d 1105 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (joint physical custody requires both >30% overnights and contribution to expenses beyond child support)
- Rehn v. Rehn, 974 P.2d 306 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (overnight awards can indicate contribution to overnight expenses)
- Shuman v. Shuman, 406 P.3d 258 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (trial court need not detail every step so long as basis for conclusions is apparent)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 335 P.3d 378 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (recipient’s demonstrated need caps permissible alimony award)