Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Connell v. Connellgreen2 sentences2019The district court did not err by imputing income to Ms. Gardner at $1,300 per month ¶ 98 Fourth and finally, Ms. Gardner argues that the district court erred by imputing “an arbitrary $1,300 per month [income], even while stating that she was not capable of working.” “In divorce cases where there is insufficient evidence of one of the statutory alimony factors, courts may impute figures.”82 “The trial court in a _____________________________________________________________ 82 Id. ¶ 116; see also Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139 , ¶¶ 14–20, 233 P.3d 836 (imputing husband’s income from a pri 2019The district court did not err by imputing income to Ms. Gardner at $1,300 per month ¶ 98 Fourth and finally, Ms. Gardner argues that the district court erred by imputing “an arbitrary $1,300 per month [income], even while stating that she was not capable of working.” “In divorce cases where there is insufficient evidence of one of the statutory alimony factors, courts may impute figures.”82 “The trial court in a _____________________________________________________________ 82 Id. ¶ 116; see also Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139 , ¶¶ 14–20, 233 P.3d 836 (imputing husband’s income from a pri | 3 | 4 |
Jones v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2023This analysis should include examination of the statutory alimony factors, see Utah Code § 30-3-5(8)(a) (2019), including the factors commonly referred to as “the Jones factors,” see Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072, 1075 (Utah 1985); see also Nicholson, 2017 UT App 155, ¶ 7 (stating that, after finding that circumstances have changed, “the court must then consider at least the following factors in determining a new alimony award: (i) the financial condition and needs of the recipient spouse; (ii) the recipient’s earning capacity or ability to produce income; (iii) the ability of the payor spouse 2023These three factors are often called the “Jones factors” because they date back to Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985); they have since been codified in Utah Code section 30-3- 5(10)(a)(i)–(iii), and they remain the first three factors of a “multi- factor inquiry” that governs a court’s alimony determination. | 1 | 2 |
Nicholson v. Nicholsongreen1 sentence2023This analysis should include examination of the statutory alimony factors, see Utah Code § 30-3-5(8)(a) (2019), including the factors commonly referred to as “the Jones factors,” see Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072, 1075 (Utah 1985); see also Nicholson, 2017 UT App 155, ¶ 7 (stating that, after finding that circumstances have changed, “the court must then consider at least the following factors in determining a new alimony award: (i) the financial condition and needs of the recipient spouse; (ii) the recipient’s earning capacity or ability to produce income; (iii) the ability of the payor spouse | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Foxgreen1 sentence2023Consequently, Kawasaki’s current claim to that effect, here on appeal, is not preserved for our review, and we do not discuss it further. 20210265-CA 6 2023 UT App 11 Wellman v. Kawasaki economic,” and “regardless of the payor spouse’s ability to pay more, the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award.” Roberts v. Roberts, 2014 UT App 211, ¶ 14 , 335 P.3d 378 (quotation simplified). ¶13 In evaluating a party’s alimony claim, “courts must consider the statutory alimony factors,” which include “the financial condition and needs of the recipient sp | 1 | 1 |
Eberhard v. Eberhardgreen2 sentences2020See Osborne v. Osborne, 2016 UT App 29, ¶ 25 , 367 P.3d 1036 . ¶16 Additionally, the “district court must make adequate findings on all material issues of alimony to reveal the reasoning followed in making the award.” Eberhard v. Eberhard, 2019 UT App 114, ¶ 5 , 449 P.3d 202 (cleaned up). 2020See Osborne v. Osborne, 2016 UT App 29, ¶ 25 , 367 P.3d 1036 . ¶16 Additionally, the “district court must make adequate findings on all material issues of alimony to reveal the reasoning followed in making the award.” Eberhard v. Eberhard, 2019 UT App 114, ¶ 5 , 449 P.3d 202 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Osborne v. Osbornegreen1 sentence2020See Osborne v. Osborne, 2016 UT App 29, ¶ 25 , 367 P.3d 1036 . ¶16 Additionally, the “district court must make adequate findings on all material issues of alimony to reveal the reasoning followed in making the award.” Eberhard v. Eberhard, 2019 UT App 114, ¶ 5 , 449 P.3d 202 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Pacific Credit Co. v. Utah State Treasurergreen1 sentence2020See Osborne v. Osborne, 2016 UT App 29, ¶ 25 , 367 P.3d 1036 . ¶16 Additionally, the “district court must make adequate findings on all material issues of alimony to reveal the reasoning followed in making the award.” Eberhard v. Eberhard, 2019 UT App 114, ¶ 5 , 449 P.3d 202 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leppert v. Leppert
green
2 sentences2019The district court did not err by imputing income to Ms. Gardner at $1,300 per month ¶ 98 Fourth and finally, Ms. Gardner argues that the district court erred by imputing “an arbitrary $1,300 per month [income], even while stating that she was not capable of working.” “In divorce cases where there is insufficient evidence of one of the statutory alimony factors, courts may impute figures.”82 “The trial court in a _____________________________________________________________ 82 Id. ¶ 116; see also Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139 , ¶¶ 14–20, 233 P.3d 836 (imputing husband’s income from a pri 2019The district court did not err by imputing income to Ms. Gardner at $1,300 per month ¶ 98 Fourth and finally, Ms. Gardner argues that the district court erred by imputing “an arbitrary $1,300 per month [income], even while stating that she was not capable of working.” “In divorce cases where there is insufficient evidence of one of the statutory alimony factors, courts may impute figures.”82 “The trial court in a _____________________________________________________________ 82 Id. ¶ 116; see also Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139 , ¶¶ 14–20, 233 P.3d 836 (imputing husband’s income from a pri | 3 | 2015–2019 |
Bakanowski v. Bakanowski
green
2 sentences2015Specifically, she contends that without an award of permanent alimony, Dr. Dahl will be able to continue to "live[ ] in luxury," while Ms. Dahl will live "as a pauper with no income and a marital property award insufficient to pay even her current obligations." 1 114 In Bakanowski, the court of appeals explained that if a district court considers each of the statutory alimony factors, "we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." 2003 UT App 357, ¶ 10 , 80 P.3d 153 , (emphasis added) (internal quotation ma 2015Specifically, she contends that without an award of permanent alimony, Dr. Dahl will be able to continue to "live[ ] in luxury," while Ms. Dahl will live "as a pauper with no income and a marital property award insufficient to pay even her current obligations." 1 114 In Bakanowski, the court of appeals explained that if a district court considers each of the statutory alimony factors, "we will not disturb its award absent a showing that such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion." 2003 UT App 357, ¶ 10 , 80 P.3d 153 , (emphasis added) (internal quotation ma | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Jensen v. Jensen
green
2 sentences2011Jensen v. Jensen, 2008 UT App 392, ¶ 9 , 197 P.3d 117 . 2011Jensen v. Jensen, 2008 UT App 392, ¶ 9 , 197 P.3d 117 . | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Williamson v. Williamson
green
2 sentences2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen 2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miner v. Miner
green
2 sentences2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen 2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Roberts v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2023Consequently, Kawasaki’s current claim to that effect, here on appeal, is not preserved for our review, and we do not discuss it further. 20210265-CA 6 2023 UT App 11 Wellman v. Kawasaki economic,” and “regardless of the payor spouse’s ability to pay more, the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award.” Roberts v. Roberts, 2014 UT App 211, ¶ 14 , 335 P.3d 378 (quotation simplified). ¶13 In evaluating a party’s alimony claim, “courts must consider the statutory alimony factors,” which include “the financial condition and needs of the recipient sp 2023Consequently, Kawasaki’s current claim to that effect, here on appeal, is not preserved for our review, and we do not discuss it further. 20210265-CA 6 2023 UT App 11 Wellman v. Kawasaki economic,” and “regardless of the payor spouse’s ability to pay more, the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award.” Roberts v. Roberts, 2014 UT App 211, ¶ 14 , 335 P.3d 378 (quotation simplified). ¶13 In evaluating a party’s alimony claim, “courts must consider the statutory alimony factors,” which include “the financial condition and needs of the recipient sp | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Paulsen v. Paulsen
green
2 sentences2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen 2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Fish v. Fish
green
1 sentence2023For example, a “court may impute income to a former spouse for purposes of calculating alimony after finding that the former spouse is voluntarily unemployed or voluntarily underemployed.” Fish, 2016 UT App 125, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Myers v. Myers
green
1 sentence2023“These factors apply not only to an initial award of alimony, but also to a redetermination of alimony during a event is a motion, “we apply the law as it exists at the time the motion is filed”), we apply the 2019 version of the statute in this appeal, but follow the parties’ lead in presuming this application to have no effect on the outcome of the case. 20220002-CA 10 2023 UT App 20 Myers v. Myers modification proceeding.” Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 8 , 983 P.2d 1103 . ¶23 “Consideration of these factors is critical to achieving the purposes of alimony,” Paulsen v. Paulsen | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wellman v. Kawasaki
green
1 sentence2023Consequently, Kawasaki’s current claim to that effect, here on appeal, is not preserved for our review, and we do not discuss it further. 20210265-CA 6 2023 UT App 11 Wellman v. Kawasaki economic,” and “regardless of the payor spouse’s ability to pay more, the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need must constitute the maximum permissible alimony award.” Roberts v. Roberts, 2014 UT App 211, ¶ 14 , 335 P.3d 378 (quotation simplified). ¶13 In evaluating a party’s alimony claim, “courts must consider the statutory alimony factors,” which include “the financial condition and needs of the recipient sp | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.