Can Utah divorce courts award assets unequally while maintaining overall equity? Boyer v. Boyer Explained

In Boyer v. Boyer, the Utah Court of Appeals examined when trial courts may make unequal distributions of specific marital assets while maintaining overall equity in property division, and clarified the parameters for decreasing alimony awards.

Background and Facts

Debra and Darren Boyer divorced after a 14-year marriage during which Husband had an affair that resulted in Wife contracting a sexually transmitted disease requiring a hysterectomy. Wife worked part-time earning $11.50 per hour, while Husband earned $110,000 annually as a stockbroker. The parties accumulated nearly $79,000 in credit card debt plus $60,000-$125,000 owed to Husband’s brother. The trial court awarded Husband his entire $20,300 partnership interest in commercial property and his $12,500 retirement account, while Wife received only her $2,500 retirement account.

Key Legal Issues

The case addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the trial court properly made an unequal distribution of specific assets without finding exceptional circumstances, and (2) whether the court’s decreasing alimony award constituted an improper prospective modification or permissible rehabilitative alimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the property division, explaining that unequal division of individual assets does not require exceptional circumstances where the overall division remains equitable. Here, Husband’s receipt of additional assets was offset by his assumption of virtually all marital debt—approximately $140,000-$204,000. The court emphasized that trial courts should examine marital property in its entirety rather than dividing each item separately.

Regarding alimony, the court distinguished between improper prospective modifications and permissible rehabilitative alimony. The court found Wife’s circumstances—age 38, marketable skills, shorter marriage duration—appropriate for rehabilitative rather than permanent alimony. However, the court remanded for clarification of the award’s intended duration due to inconsistencies in the decree.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts possess broad discretion in achieving equitable property distribution through creative asset and debt allocations. Practitioners should analyze the totality of property division rather than challenging individual asset awards in isolation. For alimony matters, the decision clarifies that decreasing rehabilitative alimony remains viable for younger spouses with earning capacity, but courts must clearly articulate whether awards are rehabilitative or traditional to avoid improper prospective modifications.