Can alimony include anticipated expenses not currently being paid? Anderson v. Anderson Explained

In Anderson v. Anderson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether alimony calculations can include anticipated expenses that the recipient spouse is not currently paying, providing important guidance for practitioners handling divorce modifications.

Background and Facts

Loren Anderson petitioned to modify child support and alimony following substantial changes in circumstances, including his incarceration for drug-related crimes. The district court imputed monthly income of $6,662 to Loren despite his claims of earning only $2,000 per month. In calculating Lynessa Anderson’s alimony needs of $4,400 per month, the court included anticipated expenses for health insurance, car payments, and retirement contributions—none of which she was currently paying due to insufficient support from Loren.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the district court properly included anticipated expenses in determining alimony needs. Loren argued that alimony should be based only on actual current expenses, not projected or anticipated costs. The court also addressed whether retirement fund contributions could be included when such contributions were not made during the marriage.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that alimony awards should help parties maintain the standard of living established during the marriage rather than merely covering current expenses. The court reasoned that actual expenses “may be necessarily lower than needed to maintain an appropriate standard of living” due to lack of income. However, the court distinguished retirement contributions, finding that Utah Code section 30-3-5 requires “extenuating circumstances” and detailed findings when addressing needs that didn’t exist during the marriage. Since no findings supported the retirement contribution and the original divorce decree specifically noted neither party had retirement plans, including this expense was an abuse of discretion.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that anticipated expenses reflecting the marital standard of living may be included in alimony calculations, even if not currently incurred due to insufficient support. However, practitioners must ensure adequate factual support exists for including expenses that weren’t part of the marital lifestyle. The court also reinforced that inadequate appellate briefing—merely marshaling facts without reasoned legal analysis—will likely result in failure to meet the burden of persuasion on appeal.