Can Utah divorce courts permanently bar future alimony modifications? Sellers v. Sellers Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Sellers v. Sellers addressed several critical issues in divorce appeals, including whether trial courts can permanently bar future alimony modifications and the requirements for preserving issues and challenging factual findings on appeal.

Background and Facts

JoAnn and Glen Sellers divorced, with the trial court entering a decree stating that “[n]either party is awarded any alimony from the other, either now or in the future.” JoAnn appealed multiple issues including custody determinations and alimony rulings, while Glen cross-appealed the child support calculation and property division. The trial court found that JoAnn earned sufficient income to meet her identified financial needs.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented several issues: whether the trial court could permanently bar future alimony modifications, whether issues were properly preserved for appeal, and whether Glen adequately marshaled evidence to challenge factual findings regarding child support calculations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that trial courts lack authority to override Utah’s alimony modification statute under Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(g), which allows modifications based on substantial material changes in circumstances. The statutory modification rights remain “wholly intact notwithstanding the language in the divorce decree to the contrary.” The court dismissed most of JoAnn’s claims for failure to preserve issues below and rejected Glen’s cross-appeal because he failed to adequately marshal the evidence supporting the trial court’s child support findings.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes two critical practice points for divorce practitioners. First, courts cannot permanently eliminate statutory modification rights for alimony, regardless of decree language. Second, appellate practitioners must carefully preserve objections at trial and thoroughly marshal supporting evidence when challenging factual findings. The court also reinforced the invited error doctrine where parties cannot benefit from errors they themselves created, particularly when counsel prepared the contested findings.