Utah Court of Appeals

Can Utah courts impute income for voluntary underemployment in child support cases? Turner v. Turner Explained

1998 UT App
No. 971615-CA
November 5, 1998
Affirmed

Summary

In this divorce case, the trial court found the wife voluntarily underemployed and imputed income based on her 1995 historical earnings. The court also declined to award alimony and set child support for seven children at an amount exceeding the statutory guidelines.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In this divorce case, the wife appealed the trial court’s decision to impute income based on her voluntary underemployment. The court found that she “is employable, and able to work at a level above which she is currently employed.” The wife had worked many hours of overtime in 1994 but reduced her hours after the parties separated in mid-1995. By September 1996, two months before trial, she further reduced her work hours, claiming she needed to stay home to care for her children’s needs.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether the trial court properly found voluntary underemployment and correctly imputed income based on historical earnings. The wife also challenged the court’s failure to make specific findings regarding the children’s unusual emotional needs under Utah Code Section 78-45-7.5(7)(d)(iv), which provides that income may not be imputed if “unusual emotional or physical needs of a child require the custodial parent’s presence in the home.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The court noted that trial courts need not “parrot the exact language of the statute” when making underemployment findings. The court found that imputing income based on the wife’s 1995 historical earnings was reasonable, as she had reduced her hours after separation. Regarding the children’s emotional needs exception, the court found no evidence of “ongoing unusual emotional circumstances” requiring her presence, noting the children were in school during most hours she stayed home.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that Utah courts will not easily excuse voluntary underemployment without compelling evidence. The court emphasized that missing statutory findings can be “reasonably implied” from the record. Practitioners should present specific, documented evidence of children’s unusual needs requiring parental presence to successfully invoke the emotional needs exception to income imputation.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Turner v. Turner

Citation

1998 UT App

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 971615-CA

Date Decided

November 5, 1998

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

Trial courts have broad discretionary powers in determining voluntary underemployment, imputing income, and setting child support obligations, and such determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.

Standard of Review

Abuse of discretion

Practice Tip

When challenging income imputation for voluntary underemployment, present specific evidence of unusual emotional or physical needs of children that require the custodial parent’s presence in the home.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Heywood v. Department of Commerce

    December 21, 2017

    An administrative agency may deny a license renewal based on evidence of past misconduct without being barred by laches, and a bankruptcy court’s memorandum decision finding fraud has preclusive effect even when the case settled before final judgment was entered.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Lee v. Frank’s Garage

    July 29, 2004

    A Virginia car dealer who advertised nationally, negotiated sale by phone with a Utah resident, and shipped the vehicle to Utah had sufficient minimum contacts to support specific personal jurisdiction in Utah for claims arising from alleged odometer tampering.
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    Read More
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.