Rule v. Rule
402 P.3d 153, 2017 UT App 137, 844 Utah Adv. Rep. 34 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When calculating an alimony award, a court must first determine the parties' needs based on the standard of living established during the marriage. This marital standard serves as the necessary baseline for an analysis, even in a 'shortfall' situation where the parties' combined resources are insufficient to maintain that standard, in order to equitably allocate the financial burden between them.
Facts:
- Richelle Rule and Geoffrey S. Rule married in March 1997.
- During their seventeen-year marriage, Geoffrey worked full-time as a scientist, while Richelle held various, mostly part-time, jobs.
- The parties' marital standard of living included expenses such as a $1,300 monthly mortgage and $600 monthly retirement contributions.
- After the parties separated, Richelle became unemployed.
- Richelle's post-separation living expenses were significantly lower than the marital standard; for example, she paid $950 in rent instead of a $1,300 mortgage and could no longer afford discretionary items like retirement contributions, travel, or donations.
- A vocational expert testified that due to ongoing concerns, Richelle's earning capacity would be maximized by part-time employment at $12.00 per hour in a low-stress environment.
Procedural Posture:
- Geoffrey S. Rule and Richelle Rule divorced by bifurcated decree in a Utah district court, reserving alimony for trial.
- Following trial, the district court awarded Richelle alimony of $814 per month, expressly declining to make findings on the marital standard of living because it found neither party could afford it.
- The court based its calculation on Richelle's actual expenses at the time of trial, discounting voluntary and discretionary items.
- Richelle filed a motion requesting additional findings or relief, arguing the court erred by not using the marital standard of living.
- In response, the court issued a supplemental order, again refusing to use the marital standard, and increased the alimony award to $874 per month.
- Richelle (appellant) appealed the district court's final supplemental order to the Utah Court of Appeals; Geoffrey 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 calculating an alimony award based on the recipient spouse's reduced standard of living at the time of trial, rather than the historical marital standard of living, when the parties' combined resources are insufficient to maintain the marital standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Roth, Judge
Yes. A court abuses its discretion when it bypasses the required analysis of the marital standard of living as the baseline for determining needs, even in a shortfall situation, and instead bases an alimony award solely on a party's reduced, actual expenses at the time of trial. The purposes of alimony are to get the parties as close as possible to their marital standard of living and to equalize their standards post-divorce. The court reasoned that using a party's reduced, actual expenses at trial is improper because those expenses may be necessarily lower due to a lack of income following separation. The historical marital standard provides the essential baseline for determining the extent of any financial shortfall and is the necessary reference point for equitably allocating that shortfall between the parties. By failing to first determine this baseline, the trial court could not properly assess whether its award was equitable, and it improperly capped the recipient spouse's needs at a reduced level, which could impair her ability to seek future modifications if circumstances change.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the procedural mandate for trial courts in alimony determinations, solidifying that the marital standard of living is the indispensable first step in the analysis. The decision clarifies that a lack of sufficient funds to maintain the marital standard (a 'shortfall') is the very reason for using that standard as a baseline, not a justification for ignoring it. By requiring courts to start with the historical standard, this precedent protects the recipient spouse from being permanently locked into a 'straitened' post-separation lifestyle and ensures that any 'equalization of poverty' is measured against a consistent and fair benchmark. This holding provides a clearer framework for lower courts and strengthens the legal basis for future modification petitions.
Unlock the full brief for Rule v. Rule