Dobson v. Dobson

• Decision Date: 28 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 20100455–CA.,20100455–CA.
• Citation: Dobson v. Dobson, 294 P.3d 591, 724 Utah Adv. Rep. 16 (Utah App. 2012)
• Parties: Tamara Turner DOBSON, Petitioner and Appellant, v. David C. DOBSON, Respondent and Appellee.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

294 P.3d 591

724 Utah Adv. Rep. 16

Tamara Turner DOBSON, Petitioner and Appellant,

v.David C. DOBSON, Respondent and Appellee.

No. 20100455–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Dec. 28, 2012.

Randy S. Ludlow, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.

Harry Caston, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Before Judges McHUGH, ROTH, and CHRISTIANSEN.

OPINION

CHRISTIANSEN, Judge:

¶ 1Tamara Turner Dobson(Wife) appeals the trial court's Decree of Divorce and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which awarded Wife physical and legal custody of the parties' two minor children and alimony for twenty years and two months.On appeal, Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the sum of $800 per month in alimony.We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2David C. Dobson(Husband) and Wife married on May 6, 1989, and Wife filed a petition for divorce in July of 2008.During the marriage, the parties had three children.One child had reached her majority by the time of trial in July of 2009, and the other children were sixteen and fourteen years of age.At trial, the parties presented evidence on the following issues: the parties' incomes, the amount of child support and alimony, and whether $30,000 given to the parties by Husband's family was a gift or a loan.In terms of Husband's income, the trial court calculated Husband's gross monthly income at $9,927, after averaging the prior three years of his annual income, which included his base salary and supplemental grant income.After allowing for monthly deductions of $2,949, the trial court calculated Husband's net monthly income at approximately $6,350.In calculating Husband's net monthly income, the trial court made a mathematical error: Husband's net income should have been calculated at $6,978, rather than $6,350—a miscalculation of $628.Husband's monthly expenses, including his child support obligation of $1,582, totaled approximately $5,350.Based upon its error, the trial court incorrectly found that the difference between Husband's income and expenses totaled approximately $1,000.

¶ 3 In terms of Wife's income, the trial court determined that although she had a pay rate of approximately $10 per hour and earned $1,766 per month as a reservation agent for JetBlue Airways, she was underemployed and had work skills and a level of education that made her capable of earning a greater income than she what was earning at the time of trial.On the other hand, the trial court reasoned that it would be inappropriate to impute to Wife a higher income based on a level of skills she did not yet possess and that would require significant time to obtain.Thus, the trial court utilized the low end of the range testified to by an employability expert who opined that based upon the current labor market, Wife's immediate starting salary could be expected to be between $29,830 and $32,480 per year.Accordingly, the trial court imputed a gross monthly income to Wife of $2,500.

¶ 4The trial court found that Wife's net monthly income, including her salary, child support, and dividend income from an inheritance, totaled approximately $3,962.After reducing Wife's claimed expenses by approximately $1,200, the court calculated Wife's monthly expenses, including those related to the parties' two minor children, at approximately $4,716.The shortfall between Wife's income and expenses was approximately $750 per month.Ultimately, the court awarded Wife $800 per month in alimony for a period equal to the length of the marriage.

¶ 5The trial court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on August 6, 2009.After trial, Wife filed a motion for a new trial and to amend findings and an objection to the proposed decree of divorce.In her motion, Wife argued that the trial court erred when it failed to equalize the parties' standards of living and in using the child support payment received by Wife in its alimony determination.The trial court heard and denied Wife's motion for a new trial on October 9, 2009, and entered an Amended Decree of Divorce on April 28, 2010.Wife appeals.

ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6 The overarching issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Wife only $800 in monthly alimony.Specifically, Wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of alimony when it (1) included child support and the children's expenses in calculating Wife's income and needs; (2) failed to consider Husband's increased ability to pay alimony once his child support obligation terminates when the parties' two minor children reach majority; (3) failed to “address the statutory requirement to equalize the parties' respective standards of living” in calculating Wife's reasonable needs based on the standard of living that she enjoyed during the marriage; and (4) incorrectly imputed additional income to Wife.Wife also argues that the trial court plainly erred in determining the amount of Husband's alimony award when the court made a “mathematical error that substantially reduced [Husband]'s disposable income.”Finally, Wife claims that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact supporting its alimony award with regard to reducing Wife's monthly expenses and deductions.

¶ 7 Trial courts have broad latitude in determining whether to award alimony and in setting the amount.“We review a trial court's award of alimony for an abuse of discretion” and “will not disturb a trial court's 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.”Connell v. Connell,2010 UT App 139, ¶ 5, 233 P.3d 836(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

I.The Alimony Award

A.Determination of Wife's Income and Needs

¶ 8 Wife first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it considered Husband's child support payment and the children's expenses in determining Wife's income and needs.The trial court included Husband's portion of the child support obligation, in the amount of approximately $1,582, as part of Wife's monthly income.Likewise, when determining Wife's needs, the court included all of the children's expenses as part of Wife's monthly expenses.

¶ 9 Wife argues that by including child support and the children's expenses in its alimony determination, the trial court effectivelymiscalculated her income and needs.By considering the child support payment that Wife was to receive from Husband as a part of her income, Wife contends that the trial court skewed the alimony determination against her and left her with too little alimony to enjoy the same standard of living that she did during the marriage or that Husband enjoyed.She also argues that by considering the children's expenses with her own, the court did not adequately consider her needs.

¶ 10 Wife asserts that child support represents income to the children, not to her and that the trial court's actions were without precedent.For example, she points to the fact that the applicable statute mandates the trial court's consideration of seven factors in its alimony determination, including “the financial condition and needs of the recipient spouse,” as opposed to the needs of the recipient spouse's children, and “the recipient's earning capacity or ability to produce income,” as opposed to the recipient spouse's children's earning capacity.SeeUtah CodeAnn. § 30–3–5(8)(a)(LexisNexis Supp.2012).Wife also cites Williamson v. Williamson,1999 UT App 219, 983 P.2d 1103, in which this court noted that “the child support paid by Mr. Williamson to Ms. Williamson is earmarked for the parties' minor child and should not be considered as income to Ms. Williamson for purposes of calculating alimony.”Id.¶ 12;see alsoReick v. Reick,652 P.2d 916, 917(Utah1982)(“[T]he basic and unalienable right to child support ... is vested in the minor.”).

¶ 11 It is typically best practice for trial courts to analyze alimony without factoring in child support obligations.But here, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's inclusion of child support in its calculation of Wife's income for alimony purposes because Wife included the children's expenses in her financial declaration as part of her expenses.Where Wife included the children's expenses within her own, which certainly increased her monthly obligations, she cannot complain that the court included Husband's child support payment as part of her income.It is clear that the trial court took this balance into consideration, as indicated by its statement at the October 9, 2009 hearing on Wife's motion for a new trial.The trial court explained that its practice is to use the parties' financial declarations to determine their reasonable needs, which for the custodial parent typically includes the reasonable needs of the children.The court explained that in doing this, when the children reach majority age and child support ceases, the custodial parent's needs necessarily decrease commensurately with the cessation of support for each child.While we reiterate that child support and alimony are separate inquiries that should be considered separately, there was no abuse of discretion here because Wife combined her expenses with those of the children.

¶ 12 Moreover, Williamson is distinguishable because there is no indication in that case that the children's expenses were included in the custodial parent's financial declaration, as they were here.See1999 UT App 219, ¶ 12, 983 P.2d 1103.Although the Williamson court instructed the trial court on remand to omit the child support payments in determining the wife's income, there is no discussion in the decision regarding whether the children's expenses were part of the listed expenses in the custodial parent's financial declaration.Seeid.Here, because Wife's claimed expenses...