Taft v. Taft
2016 UT App 135
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced after a long marriage (married 1987; bifurcated decree 2009); multiple businesses and real properties (Taft Travel Plaza, Milton’s South, Sunglow Property, several parcels) were at issue.
- At divorce, many business assets were titled in Husband’s name; accounts and personal/business finances were commingled; Husband ran the businesses, Wife was a student by trial and received a modest stipend.
- Temporary orders required Husband to pay $3,500/month family support; Husband later sought modification alleging business losses from a faulty gas pump credit reader and financial distress; he sold the Sunglow Property to his father in 2011 for $50,000.
- Trial occurred December 2013; the court issued a memorandum decision (June 2014) and supplemental decree (September 2014) resolving alimony, child support, property division (including contested valuations, inventory, water shares), fraudulent-transfer claim about Sunglow, temporary support arrears, and attorney fees.
- Wife appealed, challenging (inter alia) the court’s calculation of Husband’s income for alimony/support, adequacy of alimony findings, several property valuation and division decisions (including terms for payment of Wife’s property award), the Sunglow conveyance, retroactive enforcement of temporary support, denial of reconsideration, and denial of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimony — income calculation & findings | Court undercounted Husband’s income (failed to separately count strip-mall rents) and made inadequate findings about parties’ expenses and ability to pay | Court properly computed self‑employment income using corporate returns and excluded abnormal loss years; income $10,000/mo; findings on expenses were sufficient | Court affirmed income calculation but reversed and remanded for more detailed findings on Wife’s needs and Husband’s ability to pay (alimony amount vacated for further findings) |
| Property valuation & division (business values, inventory, water shares, car) | Court failed to separate Travel Plaza and Milton’s South valuations, omitted inventory valuation, failed to value water shares, mis‑valued vehicle | Court relied on available appraisals, tax returns, testimony; valuations within discretion where supported; some asset findings adequate | Affirmed valuations for businesses, business debt, and Mercury Sable; remanded to make explicit findings on business inventory and water shares and to revise terms of Wife’s monetary property judgment (court abused discretion in letting Husband dictate payment schedule/low interest) |
| Sunglow Property — fraudulent transfer and marital-asset inclusion | Sale to father was fraudulent (avoid creditors/support) and Sunglow should be included in marital estate as of December 2009 | Sale did not meet UFTA proof of fraudulent transfer; even if sold later, property was not included in distribution under court’s ruling | Affirmed no fraudulent transfer under UFTA (appellant failed to overcome factfinder); remanded because Sunglow was owned by Husband at time of 2009 decree and court erred by not explaining/excluding it from marital estate valuation |
| Temporary support arrears; Motion to reconsider; attorney fees | Court should have awarded retroactive arrears for unpaid temporary support and granted reconsideration and attorney fees | Court found Husband sought modification when he faced financial hardship, declined retroactive judgment given circumstances, properly denied reconsideration; insufficient remaining resources for fees | Remanded for more detailed findings on whether retroactive enforcement of temporary support is warranted; trial court’s denial of reconsideration affirmed on deference grounds; remanded for explicit findings on attorney-fees need and ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Breinholt v. Breinholt, 905 P.2d 877 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (standard for reviewing alimony determinations)
- Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985) (principal Jones factors for alimony)
- Bolliger v. Bolliger, 997 P.2d 903 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (requirement for adequate alimony findings)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (need for sufficiently detailed findings for property and financial determinations)