Riley v. Riley
2006 UT App 214, 138 P.3d 84, 552 Utah Adv. Rep. 60 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may award alimony in excess of the recipient spouse's demonstrated financial need when it considers the payor spouse's fault, such as adultery and sustained deceit, that led to the dissolution of the marriage. Additionally, a court may make an unequal division of marital property, such as retirement accounts, when exceptional circumstances exist, including one spouse's significant financial and personal sacrifices to advance the other's career.
Facts:
- John E. Riley (Husband) and Donna L. Riley (Wife) married in 1992 while Husband was in the Army.
- Shortly after marriage, Husband left the Army, forfeiting future retirement benefits, and moved to Sitka, Alaska, where Wife was employed.
- Husband stayed home to care for the children while Wife worked and was the family's primary earner.
- In 1994, the family moved to Utah so Husband could pursue an education to become a commercial pilot, which was paid for by the VA. Wife liquidated her premarital assets to contribute to family expenses during this time.
- Husband's income increased substantially after becoming a pilot, while Wife's income remained relatively stable. Over the course of the marriage, Wife earned and contributed approximately $275,000 to $300,000 more than Husband.
- In 1999, Husband engaged in an extramarital affair which resulted in the birth of a child in 2000. Husband concealed the affair and the child from Wife for nearly two years.
- After Wife discovered the child's existence in 2001, the couple attempted to reconcile under the condition that Husband would have no contact with the child.
- In 2003, Husband decided to end the marriage in order to pursue a relationship with his son, and he relocated to Houston, Texas.
Procedural Posture:
- John E. Riley (Husband) and Donna L. Riley (Wife) were parties to a divorce action in a Utah trial court.
- The trial court issued a divorce decree that ordered Husband to pay $900 per month in alimony and $5,000 of Wife's attorney fees.
- The decree also awarded each party their respective 401(k) accounts but awarded Wife all of her defined benefits from her state retirement plan.
- John E. Riley, as appellant, appealed the trial court's alimony, attorney fees, and retirement benefit awards to the Utah Court of Appeals. Donna L. Riley is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by awarding alimony that exceeds the recipient spouse's demonstrated financial need and allows for an unequal distribution of retirement assets, when the court explicitly bases its decision on the payor spouse's fault in causing the divorce and the recipient spouse's substantial contributions to the payor's career advancement?
Opinions:
Majority - Billings, Judge
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by awarding alimony in excess of demonstrated need or dividing property unequally under these circumstances. Utah statute expressly allows a court to consider the fault of the parties when determining alimony. The facts of this case, involving Husband's extramarital affair, a child born from that affair, and prolonged deceit, represent precisely the type of situation where considering fault is appropriate and can justify an alimony award higher than one based solely on economic factors. Similarly, the court acted within its discretion to award Wife her separate retirement benefits due to 'exceptional circumstances,' namely that Wife liquidated her own premarital assets and contributed substantially more financially to the marriage to allow Husband to pursue a new, high-earning career. The court reversed the separate award of attorney fees, however, because those fees were already included in the calculation of Wife's monthly expenses used to determine the alimony award, making a separate award a form of double recovery.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the role of 'fault' in Utah divorce proceedings, establishing it as a substantive factor that can justify an alimony award beyond mere financial necessity. The decision empowers trial courts to use alimony as an equitable tool to compensate a spouse for the non-economic harm caused by the other's misconduct that led to the divorce. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle that an 'equitable' division of property does not always mean 'equal,' particularly when one spouse's career and earning capacity were significantly enhanced through the direct financial and personal sacrifices of the other spouse over a long-term marriage.
