Can Utah courts include adult child expenses in alimony calculations? Rothwell v. Rothwell Explained

In Rothwell v. Rothwell, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether district courts may include expenses for adult children and attorney fees when calculating alimony needs. The case provides important guidance on evidentiary requirements and the proper legal framework for different types of financial awards in divorce proceedings.

Background and Facts

Shaun and Jenea Rothwell divorced after a 26-year marriage during which Shaun built successful logistics businesses while Jenea stayed home with their four children. The divorce involved substantial marital assets, including businesses valued at over $15 million. In her financial declaration, Jenea claimed monthly needs of $21,093, including $300 for “Adult College Aged Child” expenses and $3,500 for attorney fees. The district court substantially adopted Jenea’s proposed findings and included these amounts in her alimony award.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical issues: (1) whether adult child expenses can be included in alimony needs calculations without supporting evidence, and (2) whether attorney fees should be included in alimony needs rather than analyzed under the appropriate statutory framework for fee awards.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Regarding adult child expenses, the court held that while expenses for adult children may sometimes be included in alimony if they were part of the marital standard of living, there must be evidence that the requesting spouse actually incurs such expenses. Here, the evidence showed Shaun was paying the children’s educational expenses, none lived with Jenea, and she had no legal obligation to support adult children. The court found “no evidence from which the district court could have found that any of the children’s expenses were actually being paid for by Jenea.”

For attorney fees, the court distinguished between alimony needs analysis and attorney fee awards. Alimony is based on maintaining the marital standard of living, while attorney fees are awarded based on financial need, ability to pay, and reasonableness under Utah Code § 30-3-3 and Rule 102. Since attorney fees “did not arise until after the parties had separated,” they were not part of the marital standard of living and should not have been included in the alimony calculation.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that courts must carefully scrutinize claimed expenses in alimony calculations. Practitioners should ensure adequate evidentiary support for all claimed needs and understand that different types of financial awards in divorce require different legal analyses. The court’s reversal of $3,800 in monthly alimony demonstrates the significant financial consequences of improperly including unsupported expenses in needs calculations.