Can Utah courts reduce a spouse's living expenses based on marital fault when calculating alimony? Jenkins v. Jenkins Explained

In Jenkins v. Jenkins, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts can make fault-based reductions to a spouse’s reasonable living expenses when awarding alimony, even when the parties’ combined resources are insufficient to meet both spouses’ needs.

Background and Facts

Evan and Kristine Jenkins divorced after a 23-year marriage. The district court found that Evan was voluntarily underemployed, having reduced his income from approximately $146,000 annually before divorce proceedings to around $100,000 afterward. The court credited Kristine’s testimony that Evan had threatened to “intentionally start earning less” so she would receive less alimony. Additionally, the court found Evan substantially at fault for the marriage breakdown due to extramarital affairs and financial manipulation, including spending marital funds on paramours and using financial control to coerce sexual relations.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: (1) whether the district court properly imputed income to Evan based on voluntary underemployment, and (2) whether the court could reduce Evan’s proposed living expenses based on marital fault when calculating alimony, particularly when insufficient funds existed to meet both parties’ needs.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings under the abuse of discretion standard. Regarding income imputation, the court held that the trial court’s findings were sufficiently detailed and supported by evidence of Evan’s employment history, the timing of his income reduction, and credible testimony about his threats. The court rejected Evan’s argument that the imputation was speculative, noting it was based on his actual 2023 earnings data.

On the alimony issue, the court emphasized that while courts should generally aim to equalize post-divorce living standards, they may “depart from these default rules where necessary to achieve a fair and equitable result.” The court distinguished between punishment and equity, noting that fault-based reductions serve to “re-balance the equities” rather than punish misconduct. Critically, the court held that the existence of a shortfall does not preclude fault-based adjustments to reasonable expenses.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces trial courts’ broad discretion in alimony determinations and provides important guidance on fault considerations. Practitioners should document any evidence of voluntary underemployment, including timing relative to divorce proceedings and any statements about reducing income. When fault is involved, courts retain significant flexibility to adjust alimony awards even in cases with limited resources, provided the adjustments serve equity rather than punishment and are supported by adequate findings regarding harm caused by the fault.