Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts order prospective alimony increases based on uncertain future events? Bjarnson v. Bjarnson Explained
Summary
Following divorce, the district court ordered Hugh to pay Jennifer $830 monthly alimony while she lived rent-free with her mother, with a prospective increase to $1,830 monthly when she secured her own housing. The Court of Appeals vacated the prospective increase as improper because the court made no findings that Jennifer would certainly secure independent housing within a known time frame.
Analysis
In Bjarnson v. Bjarnson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may properly order prospective changes to alimony awards, providing important guidance for practitioners handling divorce cases with uncertain post-separation living arrangements.
Background and Facts
Following their 2019 divorce, Jennifer Bjarnson moved in with her ailing mother, living rent-free in a fully furnished home while providing care. The district court determined Jennifer was entitled to $1,830 monthly alimony, including $1,000 for anticipated housing expenses. However, because Jennifer wasn’t paying rent, the court ordered Hugh to pay only $830 monthly “until Jennifer secures her own housing,” at which time alimony would increase to $1,830. The court made no findings about when or whether Jennifer would actually secure independent housing.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether courts may order prospective alimony modifications based on uncertain future events. Hugh challenged only the prospective increase provision, arguing the court exceeded its discretion by conditioning future alimony on an uncertain event without required findings.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, emphasizing that prospective changes to alimony are disfavored and appropriate “only as to future events that are ‘certain to occur within a known time frame.'” The court distinguished Sauer v. Sauer, where alimony was based on reasonable housing costs for temporary living situations, noting that here the trial court specifically made the increase conditional on a future uncertain event rather than immediately awarding appropriate alimony.
Practice Implications
Practitioners should avoid seeking prospective alimony modifications tied to speculative future events. Instead, when a spouse’s housing situation is temporary but uncertain, courts should either: (1) immediately award alimony based on reasonable housing costs in the area, or (2) reserve the housing issue for future petition to modify proceedings with appropriate findings preserving the issue for later determination.
Case Details
Case Name
Bjarnson v. Bjarnson
Citation
2020 UT App 141
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20190734-CA
Date Decided
October 16, 2020
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Trial courts err by ordering prospective alimony increases based on uncertain future events without finding that such events are certain to occur within a known time frame.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for alimony determinations, but trial courts do not have discretion to misapply the law
Practice Tip
When a spouse’s housing situation is temporary but uncertain in duration, seek immediate alimony based on reasonable housing costs in the area rather than requesting prospective increases tied to uncertain future events.
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.