Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts impute income without specific job identification? Bond v. Bond Explained
Summary
Lisa Bond challenged the trial court’s imputation of $600 monthly income despite her multiple sclerosis diagnosis. The court relied on vocational expert testimony that Lisa could work part-time in sedentary occupations with reasonable accommodations. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s findings were supported by competent evidence.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Lisa and Mark Bond divorced after nearly 30 years of marriage. Lisa was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1995 but continued working as a travel agent until 2012, when the parties mutually decided she should stop working due to stress-related complications with her MS symptoms. Lisa applied for Social Security disability benefits and remained unemployed for the remainder of their marriage. During the divorce proceedings, the primary dispute centered on alimony, specifically whether any income should be imputed to Lisa given her medical condition.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court properly imputed $600 monthly income to Lisa based on her capacity to work part-time despite her MS diagnosis. Lisa argued that her medical condition rendered her completely unable to work, while Mark presented vocational expert testimony suggesting she could perform sedentary work with reasonable accommodations. The question became whether income imputation required identification of specific employers or job openings, or whether general evidence of employment potential sufficed.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals applied clear error review to the trial court’s factual findings and found them supported by competent evidence. The court emphasized that trial courts have broad discretion in income imputation determinations under Utah Code Section 78B-12-203(8)(b), which requires consideration of “employment potential and probable earnings.” The appellate court rejected Lisa’s argument that vocational testimony must identify specific employers, holding that general evidence of available job categories and wage ranges is sufficient. The court noted that the trial court could reasonably credit the vocational expert’s testimony over the medical testimony regarding Lisa’s complete inability to work.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that vocational experts in divorce proceedings need not identify specific job openings or employers when testifying about income imputation. Practitioners should focus on presenting credible evidence about general employment categories, wage ranges, and accommodation availability in the relevant market. When challenging income imputation, attorneys should concentrate on the expert’s qualifications and methodology rather than demanding impossible specificity about particular employment opportunities.
Case Details
Case Name
Bond v. Bond
Citation
2018 UT App 38
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160598-CA
Date Decided
March 15, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial courts may impute income based on general vocational evidence of employment potential and probable earnings without requiring identification of specific employers or job openings.
Standard of Review
Clear error for findings of fact; broad discretion for income imputation determinations
Practice Tip
When challenging income imputation in divorce cases, focus on the credibility and qualifications of vocational experts rather than demanding identification of specific employers or job openings.
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.