Court Opinion

ID: 9572781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:35.621352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:18.557416
License: Public Domain

*650HOWE, Justice:
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur in that portion of the opinion regarding the award of custody. I dissent only from the majority’s affirmance of the award of $750 per month permanent alimony.
This Court has described the purpose of alimony: “[T]he most important function of alimony is to provide support for the wife as nearly as possible at the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage, and to prevent the wife from becoming a public charge.” English v. English, 565 P.2d 409, 411 (Utah 1977). To determine the propriety of an award of alimony, three criteria have been established: (1) the financial conditions and needs of the wife; (2) her ability to produce a sufficient income for herself; and (3) the ability of the husband to provide support. Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072, 1075 (Utah 1985); English, 565 P.2d at 411-12. Failure to consider these factors constitutes an abuse of discretion.
First, we look at the financial condition and needs of defendant. She is in her early thirties, healthy, and well-educated. She has worked and continues to work full-time as a teacher. She received a large cash settlement at the time of the divorce, viz., $164,000, as well as substantial amounts of personal property. She was not left with any indebtedness incurred during the marriage, nor was she ordered to pay child support to plaintiff. Assuming she continues to teach and invests the proceeds of the settlement, she is in a strong financial position without additional support from plaintiff.
The second factor to be considered is defendant’s ability to produce a sufficient income for herself. At the time of the divorce, she was earning $2,290 a month on a twelve-month contract. In addition, she had income from employment during summer vacation. She has both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree and, as noted above, is obviously capable of producing income sufficient to provide herself with a very adequate standard of living. This case is unlike those in which the wife has no independent income, is in her fifties, and lacks work experience or training. See Jones, 700 P.2d at 1076.
The final factor to be considered is the ability of the husband to provide support to the wife. Plaintiff is a partner in a large law firm. He draws a gross salary of over $100,000 a year. The district court noted two factors which have a considerable impact on plaintiff’s income: first, he is in an income tax bracket of approximately 50 percent,1 and second, he is required to provide full support for the parties’ minor child, J.Z. The district court, however, reasoned that if plaintiff’s monthly income was reduced by $750 and defendant’s was increased by that amount, the “noticeable disparity” between the parties’ incomes would be reduced and they would be placed “in a more equal position.” I cannot agree with that reasoning. The purpose of alimony is not to equalize the incomes of the parties; it is a foregone conclusion that the practice of law has the potential for greater financial rewards than does the profession of teaching. (See this writer’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Gardner v. Gardner, 748 P.2d 1076, (Utah 1988). Rather, the purpose of alimony is to provide an adequate lifestyle for the wife, measured by the criteria set forth in Jones. The evidence is clear that defendant’s earnings, plus a reasonable return on her $164,-000 cash, will provide her with well over the $2,063 she testified she needed monthly for support.
Thus, the district court’s award of permanent alimony was an abuse of discretion when reviewed under the criteria established by this Court. This is not the type of situation where an award of permanent alimony, or any alimony whatsoever, is warranted. Should circumstances change in the future, defendant could always seek *651to modify the decree as provided by Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (1984, Supp.1985).

. While this was true at the time of trial, it does not reflect any changes wrought by the 1986 Tax Reform Act.