Court Opinion

ID: 9560220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:45:29.681863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:26.167320
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(dissenting in part):
I agree with the majority that the decision below must be affirmed. The trial court’s disposition is well within the realm of reasonableness, and no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. While I agree the appeal is not well taken, I am not convinced it was frivolously taken, and I dissent from the majority’s imposition of attorney’s fees against defendant.
Defendant had three major gripes with the trial court’s decision. First, he did not think any alimony should have been awarded because his former wife is able-bodied and gainfully employed. Second, he contended that even if some award of alimony were appropriate, the court erred in providing that alimony continue until age 65 without regard to the possibility of remarriage, cohabitation, or other changed circumstance. Finally, he complained that although the trial court awarded him 50% of the equity in the marital home, it permitted plaintiff the right to live in the home for five years without any provision that interest would accrue on the equity share — the substantial investment — he had in the home.
As to the first issue, the alimony awarded by the trial court is really on the low end of what is appropriate under the doctrine reiterated in Paffel in view of the parties' ages and education, as well as the length of their marriage and the substantial disparity in their incomes. It is a modest award and defendant cannot have reasonably thought there was any remote possibility of its being disturbed on appeal.
The second issue is equally frivolous. Although the decree recited that alimony would continue until defendant’s former wife reached 65 and did not expressly refer to earlier termination upon her remarriage or other change of circumstance, defendant’s concern is allayed by statute. Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(5) (1986) provides that unless a decree of divorce “specifically provides otherwise,” an award of alimony terminates upon remarriage. Section 30-3-5(6) provides that alimony also terminates upon cohabitation unless the arrangement is free of sexual contact. At oral argument, defendant asserted that his concern was that the “until age 65” language might *399be deemed to mean the decree had “specifically provide[d] otherwise” and required alimony be paid until age 65 regardless of whether plaintiff remarried. Taking an appeal to obtain clarification and reassurance on that point is clearly overkill. Plaintiff immediately conceded that under the statute alimony would of course terminate before age 65 should the plaintiff remarry or take on a male roommate. Timely objection to the phraseology of the decree, motion for clarification, or even a letter to opposing counsel would have readily elicited all the comfort defendant desired on this score. And as the majority points out, the continuing jurisdiction provision of § 30-3-5(3) precludes the conclusion that, even absent remarriage or cohabitation, defendant would be obligated to keep paying alimony until his ex-wife reached age 65 regardless of changes in the parties’ circumstances.
It is the third issue which, in my judgment, keeps defendant’s appeal outside the realm of frivolousness. When a residence is a major marital asset, it has become quite common to order it sold and the net proceeds divided. When the needs of the parties or their children require, it is equally common to defer the time of sale. In the latter situation, however, and especially for a period as long as five full years, it is to be expected that the equity share of the spouse who does not have the pre-sale use of the home will accrue interest at some reasonable rate, even though that interest might not be payable until the sale proceeds are available. Such a provision is necessary to compensate the spouse who has to find someplace else to live without access to his or her substantial investment which remains tied up in his or her former home. Failure to include a provision for interest would, in my judgment, ordinarily constitute an abuse of discretion where the period during which sale is deferred is of more than incidental duration. Although I, like the majority, believe no abuse was committed in this particular case, chiefly because the alimony award as such was quite meager, I believe defendant was entitled to our review of that issue to make sure this was indeed one of those rare situations where a “no interest” provision would pass muster.