Can courts award alimony based on housing needs that exceed the marital home's value? Farnsworth v. Farnsworth Explained

In Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court may base alimony calculations on a recipient spouse’s need for habitable housing that costs more than the actual marital residence. The court’s split decision provides important guidance on balancing housing needs against established marital standards of living.

Background and Facts

After a 22-year marriage, Paige Farnsworth petitioned for divorce following her husband Loren’s affair. The parties owned a 1900s-era house on 2.83 acres valued at $68,000, where they had maintained horses throughout the marriage. The trial court found that Loren had allowed the home to fall into substantial disrepair, with most discretionary income going toward his hunting hobby rather than home maintenance. The court determined that Paige lacked the skills to repair the home but needed habitable housing for herself and their 12-year-old daughter.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were: (1) whether Paige’s housing expenses could be based on a hypothetical $140,000 home rather than the $68,000 marital residence; and (2) whether $200 monthly for the daughter’s horse and livestock feed could be included in Paige’s alimony calculation rather than treated as child support.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the housing determination, finding no abuse of discretion in calculating Paige’s monthly housing costs at $700-$710 based on a $140,000 home. The court emphasized that Paige was entitled to habitable housing similar to her marital standard of living, which included a single-family home on horse property. Critically, the court found that the marital home’s poor condition resulted from Loren’s neglect, not mutual decision-making, making its $68,000 value irrelevant to determining current housing needs.

However, the majority reversed regarding the animal expenses, holding that costs for a minor child’s activities should generally be addressed through child support, not alimony, absent specific findings justifying deviation from child support guidelines.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that courts may consider fault-like factors in alimony determinations when one spouse’s conduct has artificially reduced the marital standard of living. Practitioners should document any neglect or misallocation of marital resources that affects housing habitability. When seeking alimony based on housing needs exceeding the marital residence value, establish clear evidence of uninhabitability and the responsible party’s role in creating those conditions.