Talley v. Talley, 860085-CA

• Decision Date: 02 July 1987
• Docket Number: No. 860085-CA,860085-CA
• Citation: 739 P.2d 83
• Parties: Donna S. TALLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn E. TALLEY, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

Page 83

739 P.2d 83

Donna S. TALLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn E. TALLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 860085-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

July 2, 1987.

Stephen A. Van Dyke, Bean & Smedley, Layton, for defendant and appellant.

Paul H. Liapis, Kent M. Kasting, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

Before GREENWOOD, BENCH, and ORME, JJ.

OPINION

BENCH, Judge:

Defendant appeals the property division, alimony award, and attorney fees award in a decree of divorce. We affirm the property division and the award of alimony, but we reverse the award of attorney fees.

Plaintiff Donna S. Talley and defendant Glenn E. Talley were married on June 14, 1968. On December 14, 1983, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce.

At trial on August 27, 1984, the court received evidence in the form of testimony and exhibits regarding the value of the marital assets, alimony, and attorney fees. The court issued a memorandum of decision on September 4, 1984. In its decision the court assigned values and distributed the marital property by awarding plaintiff, among other items, the parties' home, her personal property, and a portion of the furniture and fixtures in the home. The court awarded defendant, among other items, a boat, various stock, his retirement plan, his personal property, and a portion of the furniture and fixtures in the home. The court also awarded alimony and attorney fees to plaintiff. The court filed its formal findings, conclusions and decree on November 14, 1984.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in disproportionately assigning values to marital assets with insufficient evidence.

Determining and assigning values to marital property is a matter for the trial court, and this Court will not disturb those determinations absent a showing of clear abuse of discretion. Yelderman v. Yelderman, 669 P.2d 406 (Utah 1983); Turner v. Turner, 649 P.2d 6 (Utah 1982). While defendant has concededly shown that the trial court valued certain items of marital property either contrary to or in the absence of his testimony, he has failed to show how this constitutes an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the disposition of the marital property.

Defendant next argues the trial court erred in awarding alimony to plaintiff. Defendant argues the testimony and evidence at trial failed to demonstrate plaintiff's actual need for alimony.

The 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". Eames v. Eames, 735 P.2d 395, 397 (Utah App.1987) (citing Paffel v. Paffel, 732 P.2d 96, 100 (Utah 1986)). This Court will not interfere with an award of alimony absent a showing of a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. Id.

In Eames, this Court reiterated the three factors, previously adopted by the Utah Supreme Court, that the trial court must consider in awarding alimony: 1) the financial condition and needs of the receiving spouse, 2) the ability of the receiving spouse to produce a sufficient income for himself or herself, and 3) the ability of the paying spouse to provide support. Id.; see also Boyle v. Boyle, 735 P.2d 669 (Utah App.1987).

In the instant case, the parties were married for fifteen years. At the time of the divorce, plaintiff netted approximately $953.00 per month from her employment, while defendant earned approximately $2,018.00 net per month. Plaintiff testified her monthly expenses totaled $1,320.00. She asked for $500.00 per month permanent alimony. The court awarded her $250.00 per month for the first two years and $150.00 per month for the following three years. The record is clear the court...