Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts award retroactive alimony after remarriage? Ostermiller v. Ostermiller Explained

2008 UT App 249
No. 20070589-CA
June 26, 2008
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Summary

The trial court ended bifurcated divorce proceedings between David and Shirlene Ostermiller, awarding Wife retroactive alimony for a period when she was already remarried to another person. Husband appealed the alimony award and other issues, while Wife cross-appealed regarding property division and attorney fees.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In Ostermiller v. Ostermiller, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could award retroactive alimony to a spouse who had remarried during protracted divorce proceedings. The case involved David and Shirlene Ostermiller’s bifurcated divorce that spanned seven years. During this period, the alimony issue was reserved for later determination. Shirlene remarried in 2003, but the trial court did not address alimony until March 2007, when it awarded her alimony for a period that included time when she was already remarried.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether a trial court could award retroactive alimony for a period when the receiving spouse was remarried. The case also addressed child support determinations, custody evaluator costs, property division, and attorney fee awards in divorce proceedings.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court reversed the retroactive alimony award, holding that Utah Code § 30-3-5(9) provides that alimony obligations “automatically terminate” upon the receiving spouse’s remarriage. The court reasoned that David’s obligation to pay alimony terminated before it ever arose—before any court order awarding alimony was entered. The court emphasized that the purpose of alimony is to provide support and prevent a spouse from becoming a public charge, not to serve as punitive damages.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the importance of timely pursuing temporary alimony during divorce proceedings. Practitioners should advise clients seeking spousal support to request temporary orders promptly rather than allowing the issue to remain unresolved. The automatic termination provision in Utah Code § 30-3-5(9) operates regardless of whether a formal alimony order existed, making remarriage a complete bar to retroactive alimony awards. The court also clarified that attorney fee awards under Utah Code § 30-3-3(1) require a showing of actual need, not merely disparate financial resources between parties.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Ostermiller v. Ostermiller

Citation

2008 UT App 249

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20070589-CA

Date Decided

June 26, 2008

Outcome

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Holding

A trial court cannot award retroactive alimony for a period when the receiving spouse was remarried because the obligation to pay alimony automatically terminates upon remarriage under Utah Code § 30-3-5(9).

Standard of Review

Abuse of discretion for alimony awards and attorney fee determinations; regularity of proceedings presumed when adequate record not provided

Practice Tip

When seeking alimony in protracted divorce proceedings, request temporary support orders promptly rather than waiting years to address the issue, as remarriage will terminate any future alimony obligation even if no order was previously entered.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Supreme Court

    In re Anthony

    February 2, 2010

    The Utah Supreme Court may waive the ABA accreditation requirement for bar admission when an attorney has actively practiced law without blemish for nearly thirty years and comes highly recommended.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Guerro

    December 9, 2021

    A defendant cannot complain about the admission of evidence when he introduced that same evidence during cross-examination under the doctrine of curative admissibility.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.