When must Utah courts include investment expenses in alimony calculations? Mintz v. Mintz Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Mintz v. Mintz clarified when trial courts must include investment and savings expenses in alimony calculations, providing important guidance for family law practitioners.

Background and Facts

During their twenty-year marriage, Rayna and Glen Mintz maintained a luxurious lifestyle funded by Glen’s substantial income as an investment advisor. The couple regularly invested marital funds, making deposits “when money was left over after normal marital spending” before 2014, and through direct deposits from Glen’s employment compensation after 2014. When Rayna discovered Glen’s extramarital affair, they divorced. The trial court excluded investment amounts from alimony calculations, finding insufficient evidence that investments were “standard practice during the marriage” or “helped form the couple’s standard of living.”

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court properly excluded investment expenses from alimony calculations. The court also addressed entertainment expense reductions, book of business valuation, dissipation awards, and post-trial property appreciation.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court applied too narrow a definition of “standard practice.” Under Bakanowski v. Bakanowski, courts must include investment amounts in alimony when such expenditures were standard practice and contributed to the marital standard of living. The court explained that “regular” practice doesn’t require uniform frequency—activities can be regular if done “whenever the opportunity arises, though the actual time sequence may be sporadic.” Here, undisputed evidence showed the parties invested substantial amounts at least annually for nearly a decade, establishing a standard practice. The court also found that investment contributions to the marital standard of living don’t require the parties to have spent the saved money, rejecting the trial court’s restrictive interpretation.

Practice Implications

This decision provides clearer guidance for practitioners seeking alimony awards that include investment or savings components. Courts must consider regular patterns of investment as part of the marital standard of living, even when timing varies. The ruling also clarifies that marital standard of living encompasses how parties chose to allocate their resources, not just direct expenditures. Practitioners should document recurring investment patterns and demonstrate how such expenditures formed part of the couple’s lifestyle during marriage.