Must Utah courts consider a spouse's student loan debt when calculating alimony? Burggraaf v. Burggraaf Explained

In Burggraaf v. Burggraaf, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether district courts must account for a spouse’s student loan obligations when determining alimony awards, even when those loans are currently in deferment.

Background and Facts

Joseph and Carol Burggraaf divorced after nearly 22 years of marriage and five children. Joseph had obtained a medical degree but accumulated approximately $260,000 in student loan debt. Due to academic struggles stemming from a learning disability, Joseph failed his final medical board exam and abandoned his pursuit of becoming a licensed physician. His subsequent employment was sporadic, including substitute teaching, a failed business venture, and seasonal work earning $1,200 per month. The district court found Joseph willfully underemployed and imputed income of $3,421 per month. The court also determined most of Joseph’s student loans were his separate debt and awarded Carol $86 per month in alimony based on Joseph having a $446 monthly excess in his budget.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the district court properly calculated alimony when it failed to include any line item in Joseph’s budget for his substantial student loan debt, which was in deferment while he attended school. Joseph argued the court should have accounted for either current educational expenses or future student loan payments in determining his ability to pay alimony.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed most of the district court’s rulings, including the income imputation, child support calculation, and student loan debt allocation. However, the court found error in the alimony determination. Under Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(a)(iii), courts must consider “the ability of the payor spouse to provide support” when awarding alimony. The court concluded that because Joseph was found solely responsible for $260,000 in student loan debt, and his share of marital assets was insufficient to pay off that debt, he was entitled to a budget line item for either student loan payments or tuition payments to maintain deferment. The court noted that even accounting for half of Joseph’s requested $1,500 monthly educational expenses would eliminate his supposed $446 excess, significantly affecting his ability to pay alimony.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that courts must comprehensively analyze all statutory factors for alimony, particularly the payor’s genuine ability to pay. Even when debt payments are currently deferred, future payment obligations constitute legitimate budget considerations that affect a spouse’s capacity to pay ongoing support. Practitioners should ensure that significant debt obligations are properly accounted for in proposed budgets, even when not currently being serviced.