Redden v. Redden
461 P.3d 314
Utah Ct. App.2020Background
- Spencer and Debbie Redden married in 2003, separated in 2016, and divorced in 2018; alimony and allocation of debts were reserved for court decision.
- Spencer’s financial declaration listed debts: federal student loans ~$36,475 (monthly $374), credit card balance ~$4,756 (monthly $571), and vehicle loans ~$29,762 (combined monthly $762).
- At bench trial Spencer testified the student loans and vehicle loans were incurred during the marriage and repayment would begin soon; he gave equivocal testimony about what portion of the credit-card balance predated separation.
- The district court’s memorandum and decree omitted credit-card, student-loan, and vehicle-loan payments from Spencer’s adjusted monthly expenses, reasoning those amounts did not reflect the marital standard of living and that including credit-card payments would double count expenses.
- The court awarded Debbie $1,000/month alimony for 13 years. On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed exclusion of credit-card debt, reversed exclusion of student-loan and vehicle-loan payments, vacated the alimony award, and remanded for reconsideration with adequate findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spencer) | Defendant's Argument (Debbie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether student-loan payments should be allowed as monthly expense in alimony analysis | Student loans were marital debt incurred during marriage and repayment would begin soon; payments are legitimate ongoing needs affecting ability to pay alimony | Court excluded them as not reflecting marital standard of living | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; remand for reconsideration and adequate findings |
| Whether vehicle-loan payments should be allowed as monthly expense | Both vehicles purchased during marriage; each party used a vehicle; Spencer was assigned the debts, so payments affect his ability to pay alimony | Court excluded both as not reflecting marital standard of living and vehicle needs | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion as to at least one vehicle (both reversed); remand for reconsideration and findings |
| Whether credit-card debt should be allowed as monthly expense | Credit-card payments are reasonably incurred marital debt reflecting marital standard of living | Court excluded them because Spencer’s testimony was unclear and inclusion would double count expenses already claimed (food, gas) | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in excluding credit-card payments given equivocal evidence and risk of double counting |
| Adequacy of findings and effect on alimony award | Court failed to make specific, traceable findings explaining exclusions; alimony calculation therefore unsupported | Court relied on marital standard-of-living rationale but provided limited explanation | Court vacated alimony award and remanded for recalculation with adequate, detailed findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Taft v. Taft, 379 P.3d 890 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (alimony reviewed for abuse of discretion; findings must be adequate)
- Dobson v. Dobson, 294 P.3d 591 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (court must assess parties’ needs in light of marital standard of living)
- Willey v. Willey, 866 P.2d 547 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (allocated marital debts should be considered in alimony calculus)
- Connell v. Connell, 233 P.3d 836 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (ability-to-pay analysis must account for payor spouse’s needs, debts, and expenditures)
- Paulsen v. Paulsen, 414 P.3d 1023 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (findings must disclose steps court took to reach financial conclusions)
- Rule v. Rule, 402 P.3d 153 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (alimony should aim to approximate marital standard of living; steps for needs and equalization analysis)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 414 P.3d 1069 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (anticipated expenses that reflect marital standard of living may be included in needs analysis)
- Barrani v. Barrani, 334 P.3d 994 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (discusses equalization and necessity of adequate needs analysis)
- Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, 402 P.3d 219 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (equalization tied to proper findings about needs and income)