Utah Court of Appeals
Can trial courts impute alimony figures despite presented evidence? Sauer v. Sauer Explained
Summary
Paul and Pauline Sauer divorced after a long marriage and separation. The trial court awarded Pauline half of Paul’s retirement benefits and $576 monthly alimony, rejecting Paul’s claims about lost property and imputing reasonable housing expenses for Pauline despite her low reported expenses.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Sauer v. Sauer, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified when trial courts may impute figures for alimony calculations, even when parties present some evidence regarding their financial circumstances.
Background and Facts
Paul and Pauline Sauer married in 1987, separated in 2004, and Paul filed for divorce in 2013. After a bench trial, the court awarded Pauline half of Paul’s retirement benefits and $576 monthly alimony. The court rejected Paul’s claims about lost property, finding his testimony not credible regarding Pauline’s responsibility for the losses. For alimony purposes, the court imputed $975 in monthly housing expenses to Pauline, despite her testimony that she only paid $400 while living in a trailer on a friend’s property.
Key Legal Issues
Paul argued the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) rejecting his uncontested evidence about lost property values; (2) imputing alimony figures when Pauline had presented evidence of her expenses; and (3) making findings unsupported by evidence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that trial courts receive great deference on credibility determinations. The court clarified that Dahl v. Dahl permits imputation when no credible and relevant evidence exists regarding an alimony factor—not merely when no evidence exists. Here, Pauline’s $400 housing expense was not credible evidence of her reasonable future needs because it depended on a friend’s charity. The court properly imputed $975 based on Paul’s claimed reasonable housing needs, as there was no evidence their needs differed significantly.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that trial courts have broad discretion in alimony determinations and may reject evidence as not credible or relevant to future needs. Practitioners should present comprehensive evidence of reasonable expenses rather than relying on artificially low current expenses that may not reflect true needs. The decision also demonstrates the importance of providing proper record citations when challenging trial court findings on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Sauer v. Sauer
Citation
2017 UT App 114
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150952-CA
Date Decided
July 13, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial courts may impute reasonable amounts for alimony factors when credible and relevant evidence is lacking, even if some evidence regarding the factor has been presented.
Standard of Review
Clear error for findings of fact; abuse of discretion for alimony determinations and credibility findings
Practice Tip
When challenging trial court credibility determinations, provide specific record citations and demonstrate clear error rather than arguing the court should have believed uncontested testimony.
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.