Must Utah courts consider net income when calculating alimony? McPherson v. McPherson Explained

In McPherson v. McPherson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical issue facing family law practitioners: whether trial courts must consider a payor spouse’s net income, including tax obligations, when calculating alimony payments.

Background and Facts

Gordon McPherson worked as a diesel mechanic for sixteen years before being promoted to a high-paying Product Sales and Support Representative position in 2007, dramatically increasing his income from approximately $47,000 to $172,620 annually. However, after developing an extramarital relationship with a client’s employee and making threatening phone calls, he was terminated in November 2009. He returned to work as a diesel mechanic earning $4,680 gross monthly ($3,074.57 net). The trial court calculated his alimony obligation using his gross income, resulting in total support obligations of $4,606 monthly—exceeding his net income by over $1,500.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: (1) whether trial courts must consider net income rather than gross income when determining a payor spouse’s ability to pay alimony, and (2) whether courts may retroactively modify temporary support orders when underlying assumptions prove incorrect.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that trial courts must consider tax obligations when determining ability to pay under Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(a). The court emphasized that adequate findings regarding the payor spouse’s ability to pay must include consideration of tax obligations, citing Andrus v. Andrus and Paffel v. Paffel. The court found that imposing support obligations exceeding the payor’s net income without detailed findings explaining the rationale constituted an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the court held that trial courts have statutory authority under Utah Code section 78B-12-112 to retroactively modify spousal support payments during pending modification periods.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the importance of presenting comprehensive financial evidence, including detailed tax calculations and net income documentation. Practitioners should ensure clients provide complete financial declarations showing after-tax income, not just pay stubs. When seeking alimony modifications, the case confirms that temporary orders are not set in stone and may be adjusted retroactively from the date of service when circumstances change. The decision also highlights that trial courts retain discretion to equalize parties’ standards of living but must provide adequate findings justifying any support obligations that exceed the payor’s demonstrated ability to pay.