Do temporary alimony payments count toward statutory duration limits for permanent alimony? Tobler v. Tobler Explained

In Tobler v. Tobler, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether temporary alimony payments should count against Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(j)’s statutory limit that generally caps permanent alimony at the duration of the marriage.

Background and Facts

Russell and Brittney Tobler married in 2007 and had three children before divorcing. During the divorce proceedings, the district court awarded Brittney temporary alimony of $2,500 monthly and ultimately permanent alimony of $2,000 monthly for four years and eight months—the duration of their marriage. Russell argued he should receive credit for temporary alimony payments against the permanent alimony period, contending that without such credit, his total alimony obligation exceeded the statutory duration limit.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(j)’s limitation that alimony “may not be ordered for a duration longer than the number of years that the marriage existed” includes temporary alimony payments within its durational cap. Russell also challenged the court’s denial of his bifurcation motion and the calculation of his income for child support purposes.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s alimony award, finding that Russell failed to meet his burden of persuasion on appeal. The court noted Russell provided no case law interpreting section 30-3-5(8)(j) to include temporary alimony within the statutory time limitation, nor did he make a supported argument based on statutory interpretation principles. However, the court remanded on child support, finding inadequate findings regarding whether the district court properly deducted Russell’s reasonable business expenses from his rental income.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that temporary and permanent alimony serve different purposes under Utah law, with only permanent alimony counting against statutory duration limits. For practitioners, the case emphasizes the importance of adequate factual findings when calculating income for support purposes, particularly regarding business expense deductions from rental income. The court’s application of State v. Nielsen‘s revised marshaling standards also demonstrates the continued importance of thorough appellate briefing with proper record citations and legal authority.