Can Utah courts impute income to a spouse who hasn't worked in their profession for decades? Hartvigsen v. Hartvigsen Explained

In Hartvigsen v. Hartvigsen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court can impute income to a divorced spouse based on their educational background and employment potential, even when they haven’t worked in their profession for nearly two decades.

Background and Facts

Danielle and Richard Hartvigsen married in 1995 and separated in 2005 after a contentious relationship. Following extensive litigation, a 2012 trial resulted in Danielle receiving over $1 million in property and $1,000 monthly alimony. The district court imputed $50,000 in annual income to Danielle, despite her not having worked as an attorney for 19 years. Danielle held a juris doctor from Stanford Law School and had been admitted to the Utah State Bar in 1990, but her employment at a law firm was terminated in 1993.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether the district court abused its discretion by: (1) imputing income to Danielle based on her legal education despite her lengthy absence from practice; (2) determining her financial needs; and (3) treating certain jointly-titled property as Richard’s separate property despite the presumption of gift doctrine.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s income imputation. The court noted that Utah Code section 78B-12-203(7)(b) allows income imputation based on “employment potential and probable earnings.” A vocational expert testified there were 260 annual attorney openings in Utah’s metro area with entry-level salaries between $61,318 and $70,886. The district court imputed only $50,000—well below the expert’s range—demonstrating appropriate discretion. The court rejected Danielle’s argument that she needed evidence of the number of job applicants, noting that imputation “by definition, contemplates a degree of speculation.”

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates that Utah courts have broad discretion in alimony determinations and income imputation. Educational credentials and professional licenses can support income imputation even after lengthy periods of non-practice. When challenging imputation, parties should present affirmative evidence showing why the proposed amount is unrealistic rather than merely questioning the sufficiency of the opposing party’s evidence. The decision also reinforces that trial courts’ credibility determinations receive significant deference on appeal.