Roberts v. Roberts
2014 UT App 211
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Married September 1989; four children; separated June 2009 after Wife admitted to an extramarital affair.
- Wife opened a deli franchise; Husband worked at a bank; Wife’s deli income limited to a monthly draw $1,000–$2,000.
- Temporary orders (2009): joint custody for three younger children, Husband had primary custody of oldest; Wife to pay Husband child support and share of health costs; alimony temporary order issued.
- Trial court (Feb 2012) issued divorce decree: joint custody; imputed Wife income $3,000/month; Wife’s expenses $4,000; alimony $1,281/month; child support $381/month; both liable for tax consequences of Wife’s business.
- Court found Wife not cohabiting with a male friend; ordered Wife to keep deli business with debt; ordered equal tax liability for joint returns; denied reimbursement for some medical expenses.
- Court held that findings were insufficient on alimony amount/duration, child support retroactivity, and attorney fees, and remanded for new findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony amount and duration | Roberts: Wife’s demonstrated need supports maximum alimony | Roberts: court abused by overmatching need | Remanded for reassessment of alimony amount/duration |
| Retroactive modification of temporary child support | Roberts: court should adjust based on Wife’s actual income | Roberts: trial court had discretion, no retroactive change | Remanded for further findings on retroactivity |
| Attorney fees award | Roberts: award lacks sufficient factual basis | Roberts: discretion to award fees should stand | Remanded for additional findings on need, ability to pay, and reasonableness |
| Tax liability and division of Wife’s business | Roberts: should insulated from business tax liability | Wife’s losses and mutual benefits justify equal tax risk | Affirmed division of tax liability; remand not required on this issue as no abuse shown |
| Cohabitation and fault in alimony | Roberts: fault/adultery should influence alimony | Roberts: Mark v. Mark controls; no adjustment for fault | Affirmed reliance on Mark; no fault-based termination; no cohabitation found as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Connell v. Connell, 233 P.3d 836 (Utah 2010) (requires adequate detailed findings to support alimony decisions)
- Jensen v. Jensen, 197 P.3d 117 (Utah 2008) (analyzes need vs. ability to pay in alimony)
- Mark v. Mark, 223 P.3d 476 (Utah 2009) (allows consideration of fault in alimony, later constrained by statute)
- McPherson v. McPherson, 265 P.3d 839 (Utah App. 2011) (retroactivity and discretionary adjustments in alimony)
- English v. English, 565 P.2d 409 (Utah 1977) (basis for alimony considering needs and payor’s ability to pay)
- Foreman v. Foreman, 176 P.2d 144 (Utah 1946) (historical perspective on alimony purposes)
- Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669 (Utah 1985) (cohabitation evidence standards)