Gardner v. Gardner

• Decision Date: 15 October 2019
• Docket Number: No. 20170598,20170598
• Citation: 452 P.3d 1134
• Parties: Christina L. GARDNER, Appellant, v. Nelson D. GARDNER, Appellee.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

452 P.3d 1134

Christina L. GARDNER, Appellant,
v.
Nelson D. GARDNER, Appellee.

No. 20170598

Supreme Court of Utah.

Filed October 15, 2019

Robert W. Hughes, Julie J. Nelson, Erin B. Hull, Salt Lake City, for appellant

Jill L. Coil, Luke A. Shaw, Kyle O. Maynard, Sandy, David W. Read, Salt Lake City, for appellee

Chief Justice Durrant authored the opinion of the Court, in which Associate Chief Justice Lee, Justice Himonas, Justice Pearce, and Justice Petersen joined.

AMENDED OPINION^*

On Direct Appeal

Chief Justice Durrant, opinion of the Court:

Introduction

¶ 1 After a twenty-two year marriage, Nelson Gardner and Christina Gardner divorced. Before the divorce trial, they settled issues related to child custody and the distribution of their marital property. But they could not agree on the proper terms of Mr. Gardner's alimony obligation to Ms. Gardner. After a three-day bench trial, the district court determined that Ms. Gardner was entitled to alimony, but, because of her extramarital sexual affairs, the court reduced her alimony award in amount and duration.

¶ 2 Specifically, the court calculated the amount of the alimony award based on Ms. Gardner's expected reasonable monthly expenses, rather than on the monthly expenses she had incurred while married to Mr. Gardner. The court also set the alimony award for a period of ten years rather than the maximum statutory length of twenty-two years. The court stated that it was making these reductions because it did not believe it would be fair, where Ms. Gardner's conduct had substantially contributed to the demise of the marital relationship, to obligate Mr. Gardner to maintain Ms. Gardner at the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage.

¶ 3 Ms. Gardner now appeals the terms of the alimony award, arguing the court erred in the following respects: (1) in determining that her infidelities substantially contributed to the end of the marriage; (2) in setting the specific terms of the alimony award; (3) in imputing income to her at an "arbitrary amount"; (4) in failing to consider the tax burden of the alimony award; and (5) in denying her request for attorney fees. Because none of the alleged errors constituted an abuse of the district court's discretion or were plainly incorrect, we affirm the district court's alimony determination on all counts.

452 P.3d 1139

Background

¶ 4 Nelson Gardner and Christina Gardner were married for twenty-two years before divorcing in 2017. During the course of the marriage, Mr. Gardner worked full-time, and Ms. Gardner stayed home with their five children.¹ Although the couple had agreed to this arrangement, after their youngest child turned five, Mr. Gardner frequently encouraged Ms. Gardner to work outside the home or to obtain additional education.

¶ 5 At the time of the divorce, Mr. Gardner worked as a "global director of business development," making roughly $200,000 per year. Ms. Gardner, on the other hand, did not have consistent employment but "occasionally worked part-time, earning $11 or $12 per hour." Ms. Gardner does not have a college degree or any professional license, but she has earned money teaching swimming, piano, sewing, and art classes. Also, she has earned sizeable commissions for her artwork, although not on a consistent basis.

¶ 6 The couple's relationship had a lot of "ups and downs" throughout the marriage. Mr. Gardner testified that the key factor in the couple's marital discord was Ms. Gardner's "multiple episodes of infidelity." In 2007 and 2009, Ms. Gardner had extramarital sexual affairs. Although the parties appeared to have "reconciled and moved on" following these affairs, the court found that Mr. Gardner had suspected Ms. Gardner of having another affair in 2013. And, according to Mr. Gardner, the "final nail" was in 2016 when he discovered that Ms. Gardner had developed an "inappropriate relationship" with another man. He made this discovery after Ms. Gardner was injured in an accident while allegedly spending time with that man.² Mr. Gardner filed for divorce shortly thereafter.

¶ 7 Although both parties also testified to the existence of other marital problems, including "mutual verbal abuse" and one act of physical abuse by Ms. Gardner, as well as to arguments over finances and marital responsibilities, the district court found that it was Ms. Gardner's "sexual relationships with persons other than [Mr. Gardner that] substantially caused the breakup of the marriage relationship." The district court determined that this constituted "fault" under Utah Code section 30-3-5, and so could be considered as part of the court's alimony determination.

¶ 8 The court factored fault into its alimony determination in two ways. First, it held that, due to Ms. Gardner's fault, it need not pursue the typical goal of equalizing the standards of living between the parties.³ Second, it determined that Ms. Gardner was not entitled to alimony "for the maximum allowed duration." It reasoned that these reductions were warranted because it would be "unfair for one of the parties to cause the breakup of the marriage relationship but to continue to enjoy the temporal and material benefits of having the (ex-)spouse support an affluent life-style enjoyed by both during the marriage."

¶ 9 The court departed from the goal of equalization by calculating Ms. Gardner's alimony award based on "reasonable monthly expenses" rather than on the expected monthly expenses she incurred while living at the lifestyle she enjoyed before the divorce. This resulted in a $1,513 reduction in Ms. Gardner's estimated "need"—from $6,950 to $5,437 per month.

¶ 10 The court arrived at this reduced number, in part, by reducing her expected housing expenses "from $2,455 [per] month to $1,600 [per] month." It concluded that although $1,600 per month might not be enough to buy a home in her former neighborhood, it should be enough to rent "a three bedroom apartment ... in that area" or to purchase "a modest home, probably on the

452 P.3d 1140

west side of the freeway." The court also reduced other anticipated living expenses, such as Ms. Gardner's anticipated car payment and gas and utility expenses, to reflect more "reasonable" monthly expenses.

¶ 11 With Ms. Gardner's adjusted monthly expenses in mind, the court set out to calculate an alimony payment amount that would meet her needs. As the first step in this calculation, the court imputed an income of $1,300 per month to Ms. Gardner.⁴ Next, the court factored in the $2,137 per month in child support payments that Ms. Gardner would be receiving from Mr. Gardner until the two minor children turned eighteen or graduated from high school, whichever occurred later. Finally, the court awarded Ms. Gardner $2,000 per month in alimony payments. Adding the imputed income, child support, and alimony together, the court calculated that Ms. Gardner would have an income of $5,437 ($4,137 of which would come from Mr. Gardner) per month to match her expected reasonable needs of $5,437.

¶ 12 The court also determined that the alimony payment amount would increase to $2,368 per month once their second youngest son turned eighteen or graduated from high school. And it would increase again to $3,128 per month once their youngest son turned eighteen or graduated from high school. Thereafter, the alimony amount would decrease by $200 per year until the term for alimony expired or terminated for another reason. The court explained that this "step-down" arrangement was designed "to encourage [Ms. Gardner] to start working, get[ ] some education, or, if she is indeed disabled,⁵ to seek income from a government or charitable disability program."

¶ 13 Although the court acknowledged that under the adjusted monthly totals, Ms. Gardner would not be able to enjoy "the same affluent life-style that she had during the course of the marriage," it explained that such a result was fair in light of its fault determination because to do otherwise would have the effect of "penaliz[ing] Mr. Gardner for something that really did not appear ... was his fault."

¶ 14 The court also factored fault into its alimony calculation by deciding that Ms. Gardner was "not entitled to receive alimony for the maximum allowed duration under the statute, which is the length of the marriage." So the court ordered Mr. Gardner to pay alimony for a ten-year period, rather than the maximum allowed period of twenty-two years.⁶

¶ 15 Ms. Gardner now appeals the terms and the length of the alimony award. The appeal was initially filed in the court of appeals, but that court certified it to us. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(b).

Standard of Review

¶ 16 Ms. Gardner raises a number of issues on appeal. First, she challenges the district court's fault determination, as well as the terms of her alimony award. We review a district court's alimony determination "for an abuse of discretion and ‘will not disturb [its] ruling on alimony as long as the court exercises its discretion within the bounds and under the standards we have set and has supported its decision with adequate findings and conclusions.’ "⁷ Second, she argues that the district...