Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts terminate alimony retroactively when cohabitation is concealed? Black v. Black Explained
Summary
Wife appealed the trial court’s retroactive termination of alimony to the date Husband filed his first petition to modify, arguing termination should only be prospective or relate back to when Husband amended his petition to include cohabitation. The trial court found Wife had concealed her cohabitation for nearly five years and engaged in active cover-up including false discovery responses.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Black v. Black, the parties divorced in 1989 after nine years of marriage, with the wife receiving $750 monthly alimony. In 2001, the husband filed a petition to terminate alimony based on having paid for twelve years despite the marriage lasting only nine. During discovery, the wife falsely responded to interrogatories, denying that anyone lived with her despite cohabiting with Ted Tomlin since fall 2000. In 2005, just before trial, the husband amended his petition to include cohabitation as grounds for termination. The trial court found the wife had actively concealed the relationship and terminated alimony retroactively to the date of the original 2001 petition.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Utah Code section 30-3-5(10), which terminates alimony upon establishment of cohabitation, permits retroactive termination and, if so, to what date. The wife argued termination should only be prospective, while the husband contended it should relate back to when cohabitation actually began.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals determined that section 30-3-5(10) is silent regarding retroactivity, leaving such decisions to the trial court’s broad discretion. Unlike death or remarriage, which have fixed dates, cohabitation presents complex factual and evidentiary issues. The court distinguished cohabitation termination from general modification rules in section 78B-12-112(4), noting that cohabitation requires case-specific analysis. Given the wife’s five-year concealment, false discovery responses, and witness tampering, the trial court properly exercised discretion in imposing retroactive termination to the petition date rather than requiring termination only from when cohabitation began.
Practice Implications
This decision confirms trial courts have significant latitude in fashioning alimony termination orders for cohabitation. Practitioners should thoroughly document any concealment or deceptive conduct when seeking retroactive relief. The decision also emphasizes that while retroactive termination to the cohabitation start date is permissible, courts may choose other dates based on the specific facts and equitable considerations.
Case Details
Case Name
Black v. Black
Citation
2008 UT App 465
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20071014-CA
Date Decided
December 18, 2008
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial courts have broad discretion to terminate alimony retroactively when cohabitation is established, and may terminate alimony as of the date a petition to modify was filed rather than when cohabitation began.
Standard of Review
Correction of error for statutory interpretation; abuse of discretion for alimony modification decisions
Practice Tip
When seeking alimony termination for cohabitation, file comprehensive discovery requests early and document any attempts by the recipient spouse to conceal the cohabiting relationship to support retroactive termination.
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
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.