Can Utah courts decline to impute income to disabled unemployed ex-spouses? Issertell v. Issertell Explained

Background and Facts

In Issertell v. Issertell, James Issertell was required to pay $1,497 in child support and $2,500 in alimony monthly based on his $8,670 monthly income from L-3 Communications. After being fired in 2016, James applied for over 800 jobs through various platforms but received no offers. James suffers from service-related disabilities with a 100% VA disability rating, receiving $3,698.32 monthly in VA benefits. His disabilities require multiple medications and cause processing disorders that affect his ability to maintain focus and concentration.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the district court properly determined James’s income for child support and alimony purposes. Tish argued the court should have imputed income to James at either his previous salary level or minimum wage. She also contended that financial contributions from James’s current wife constituted gifts that should be considered income for support calculations.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found James was involuntarily unemployed based on his extensive job search efforts and 100% disability rating that impaired his employment capacity. The court noted that income imputation requires findings regarding employment potential and probable earnings. Here, James’s disabilities rendered it “impossible for him to earn the income which he earned until he was fired.” The court also found that contributions from James’s current wife were loans, not gifts, and that equalization of income was appropriate given both parties’ financial deficits.

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates the importance of thorough documentation when claiming involuntary unemployment. Practitioners should gather comprehensive evidence of job search efforts, medical documentation of disabilities, and VA ratings when applicable. The decision also clarifies that courts have discretion in income imputation decisions and may decline to impute income when disabilities genuinely impair earning capacity. Additionally, the case shows that preservation of error rules apply strictly to different theories of income imputation—parties cannot raise alternative imputation amounts for the first time on appeal.