Court Opinion

ID: 9633606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:54:04.543798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:17.536827
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Justice
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur in the majority opinion except in that part dealing with alimony. As to that part, I dissent for the following reasons.
First, in reversing and remanding for a valuation of the medical and retirement assets and a redistribution of marital property on the basis of those findings, Mrs. Gardner’s financial position will undoubtedly improve and her income increase. This increase will have a direct bearing on the amount of alimony which she should be awarded. It is premature for us to now hold that the $1,200 per month or the $600 per month awarded by the trial court is inadequate. It may well be that after the redistribution of property is made, the amounts awarded will be entirely fair and could even be excessive. This is especially true as to $600 alimony after Mr. Gardner’s retirement. Any amount of his retirement awarded to her on remand decreases her need for alimony and his ability to pay it. The trial judge recognized this reality when he wrote in his memorandum decision:
Upon his retirement, the alimony shall reduce to $600 per month. The reasons for this reduction are: by the time of retirement, the home should be sold and the plaintiff should have liquid assets; defendant’s income will materially decrease; plaintiff will also receive some social security benefits. It is my intent in awarding to the defendant his medical assets and retirement assets that alimony shall be paid therefrom and that the plaintiff shall have a claim thereon as against the defendant’s estate if he should predecease her. This claim shall be in the amount of $50,000.
Second, the $l,700-per-month alimony requested by Mrs. Gardner was based on her affidavit which listed her monthly needs at that amount, but based on her assumption that the court would allow her to continue to live on the twenty-one-acre country estate of the parties on which is a six-bedroom home with garages for four cars, a bam, and other outbuildings. Consequently, in arriving at her $l,700-per-month request, she included the monthly mortgage *1083payment, the property taxes, insurance premiums on that property, monthly utilities on that property, and amounts for the care of the farm animals and for farm, garden, and house maintenance and repairs. However, the trial court did not award her the country estate or allow her to permanently stay there, but ordered that the parties sell the property as soon as possible. The majority opinion does not assail this determination. The sale of the property ordered by the court necessarily eliminated many of the monthly expenses which formed a basis for the $1,700 alimony request. The trial court, therefore, acted properly in excluding those items of expense in determining a reasonable amount of monthly alimony and presumably included instead the cost of Mrs. Gardner’s living in smaller and less expensive quarters. On cross-examination, Mrs. Gardner admitted that her cost of living would be less if she did not live on the estate. Thus, the $1,200 awarded by the trial court was clearly within the range of the evidence before the court. The majority does not claim that $1,200 was “clearly erroneous” as rule 52, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, requires us to conclude before we may upset findings of fact by the trial court.
We have always accorded trial courts considerable latitude in fixing alimony. Yet here, the majority sweeps aside the trial court’s judgment because it is only one-fifth of Mr. Gardner’s monthly income and is insufficient to “equalize the parties’ standard of living.”. Insofar as this writer knows, reasonable and fair alimony has never been expressed as a percentage of the husband’s monthly income. This is a new concept, completely foreign to the test recognized in Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985), for determining an alimony award. Since the monthly income of divorced husbands is not all the same, the monthly needs and financial conditions of divorced wives vary widely, and debts and other factors have to be considered, percentages should not be employed or relied on.
Finally, I strongly dissent from the repeated references in the majority opinion that alimony is to “equalize” the financial position of the parties after their divorce. Again, this concept is contrary to the three factors to be considered which we enumerated in Jones v. Jones, supra: (1) the financial condition and needs of the wife, (2) the ability of the wife to produce a sufficient income for herself, and (3) the ability of the husband to provide support. We have said that the wife is entitled to enjoy as near as possible the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and she should be prevented from becoming a public charge. English v. English, 565 P.2d 409, 411 (Utah 1977). But this is not the same as “equalizing” their incomes. The instant case is a good example. Mr. Gardner is a highly skilled surgeon earning $6,000 per month. Mrs. Gardner was not employed at the time of the divorce. She thought she could maintain the standard of living to which she had become accustomed if she received $1,700 per month alimony. If their financial positions after divorce are to be equal, she presumably should have $3,000 per month alimony. I do not think the majority intends that result.
The object of divorce is to set the parties free of each other after an equitable division of property is made and, if needed, an award of alimony is made which will enable both parties to maintain as near as possible the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage. The parties then go their separate ways and attempt to rebuild their lives. But because of the disparity in their earning ability, the wife here, who has training as a secretary but has not been employed for thirty-three years, will never earn as much as her husband-surgeon. Our cases do not suggest that the divorce decree should attempt to cure this disparity by “equalizing” their future incomes.