Bridenbaugh v. Bridenbaugh

• Decision Date: 02 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 880181-CA,880181-CA
• Citation: Bridenbaugh v. Bridenbaugh, 786 P.2d 241 (Utah App. 1990)
• Parties: Edrie A. BRIDENBAUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William BRIDENBAUGH, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 241

786 P.2d 241

Edrie A. BRIDENBAUGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.William BRIDENBAUGH, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 880181-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Jan. 2, 1990.

J. Franklin Allred, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

James P. Cowley, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

Before BENCH, BILLINGS and GREENWOOD, JJ.

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order denying her petition for an increase in alimony and granting defendant's petition to terminate alimony.

The parties were divorced in December 1965, after ten years of marriage.The decree of divorce incorporated provisions of a property settlement agreement which awarded plaintiff $400 per month alimony.Defendant paid alimony as required by the decree, for approximately twenty-two years, and then filed a petition seeking termination of the alimony obligation.Plaintiff filed a counterpetition, seeking an increase in alimony.

The trial court made the following findings of fact in support of the order terminating alimony and denying plaintiff's request for an increase in alimony: the parties were married in 1956 and had two children; the children are now adults no longer dependent on either of the parties; the 1965 decree required defendant to pay plaintiff $400 per month as alimony and $150 per child per month as child support; with the exception of perhaps two months, defendant paid alimony as required by the decree, from the time of the divorce through January 1988; at the time of the 1965 divorce, plaintiff was not employed and had no income from outside sources; during the four years after the divorce, plaintiff did not work but did obtain a Master's degree in social work; thereafter, she became employed and worked for Granite School District for approximately fourteen years as a social worker; plaintiff's 1987 salary was $16,203.77; in 1987plaintiff also had interest, dividends and mutual fund earnings and income of $5,864.40, as well as $4,600 in alimony payments; plaintiff currently provides satisfactorily for her own welfare; there has been a material change in circumstances and improvement between the 1965 divorce and the present; while defendant has had a significant increase in his net worth and salary since the divorce, plaintiff has also experienced a substantial increase in net worth and income; plaintiff is buying the condominium she occupies; she has approximately $100,000 in stocks and bonds, owns a cabin debt-free and has substantial retirement benefits; plaintiff has a current net worth of $221,200; not all of plaintiff's claimed monthly expenses are properly documented or justified; at the time of the divorce defendant was earning approximately $30,000 per year, and now has a base salary of approximately $240,000 per year and has a current net worth of approximately $2,500,000; and, while the parties anticipated permanent alimony, they provided for termination of alimony by order of the court.

On appeal, plaintiff claims the court erred in finding a material change in her circumstances which warranted terminating alimony, and by refusing to find that the material change in defendant's circumstances warranted an increase in alimony.

Trial courts have considerable discretion in determining the amount of alimony appropriate in a given case, and will be upheld unless a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion is shown.Paffel v. Paffel, 732 P.2d 96, 103(Utah1986);Maughan v. Maughan, 770 P.2d 156, 161(Utah Ct.App.1989).A party seeking modification of a prior alimony award bears the burden of establishing that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred which justifies modification.Id.In order to reduce or terminate alimony, the trial court"must be persuaded that appellant will be able to support herself at a standard of living to which she was accustomed during the parties' marriage, or that respondent is no longer able to pay."Fullmer v. Fullmer, 761 P.2d 942, 951(Utah Ct.App.1988).This standard is consistent with the purpose of alimony and the criteria used in determining a proper amount.The fundamental purpose of alimony "is to enable the receiving spouse to maintain as nearly as possible the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and to prevent the spouse from becoming a public charge."Paffel, 732 P.2d at 100.Courts are to consider the "financial condition and needs of the spouse claiming support, the ability of that spouse to provide sufficient income for him or herself, and the ability of the responding spouse to provide the support."Id. at 101.In Haslam v. Haslam, 657 P.2d 757, 758(Utah1982), the Utah...