Can Utah courts include overtime wages in alimony calculations? Beverlin v. Beverlin Explained

In Beverlin v. Beverlin, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether district courts can include overtime wages in income calculations for alimony purposes and reaffirmed the presumption of equal property division in Utah divorces.

Background and Facts

Steven and Gail Beverlin divorced after 33 years of marriage. Steven worked for the federal government earning $144,000 annually before retiring at age 58, while Gail worked for the IRS earning $26,125 annually. Due to COVID-19 backlogs, Gail had been working substantial overtime, with her financial declaration showing net monthly income of $3,376 including overtime pay. The district court included Gail’s overtime in her income calculation, imputed $60,000 in income to Steven rather than his full preretirement salary, awarded Gail $500 monthly alimony, and divided marital property equally.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether overtime wages could be included in income calculations for alimony, (2) whether the district court should have imputed Steven’s full preretirement salary, and (3) whether the equal division of marital property was appropriate.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Under Utah Code § 81-6-203(2)(c), overtime income can be considered for alimony if the spouse “normally and consistently worked more than 40 hours” before the original support order. The court found that Gail’s tax returns and paystubs showed overtime work in nearly every pay period over thirteen months, establishing a pattern of normal and consistent overtime work despite its COVID-19 related origins. Regarding Steven’s income imputation, the court held this issue was moot because Gail’s demonstrated need ($500) was within Steven’s ability to pay, so imputing higher income would not increase her alimony award. For property division, the court reaffirmed that marital property is presumed to be divided equally absent exceptional circumstances, which Gail failed to demonstrate.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for family law practitioners on overtime income calculations. Courts will examine the consistency and normalcy of overtime work patterns rather than focusing solely on the temporary nature of the circumstances creating overtime opportunities. The decision also reinforces that imputing higher income to a payor spouse is meaningless if it exceeds the recipient spouse’s demonstrated need, making thorough expense documentation crucial for receiving spouses.