Alimony terminates upon remarriage unless decree specifically provides otherwise.

June 17, 2021

McQuarrie v. McQuarrie, Utah Supreme Court No. 20190902 (Filed June 17, 2021). Divorce decrees with an alimony provision terminate upon remarriage of the recipient spouse unless the language of the decree is specific, clear and express provision that payments continue after remarriage. The Utah Supreme Court held in this case:

As a general rule, a stipulated divorce decree is interpreted in accordance with the law of contract interpretation— with the goal of discerning the intentions of the parties, as reflected in the ordinary meaning of the terms of the decree as a whole. But that general rule is subject to a specific statutory exception. If a divorce decree calls for payment of alimony, the payment is presumed to terminate upon remarriage of the receiving spouse, and the presumption is rebutted only if the divorce decree “specifically provides otherwise.” UTAH CODE § 30- 3-5(9) (2015).

As the district court and the court of appeals in this case noted, the divorce decree at issue included provisions that, taken as a whole, could be interpreted to suggest that the parties contemplated that alimony would continue upon remarriage. But that is insufficient. Under the above-quoted statute as interpreted in our case law, the presumption that alimony terminates upon remarriage is rebutted only by a “specific[]” alimony provision that expressly “provides otherwise.” There was no such specific, express provision in the decree at issue here. And we reverse the decision of the court of appeals on that basis.

to Read entire case, CLICK HERE

February 13, 2020
Vehicle payments incurred during the marriage (even multiple vehicles) may impact a payor’s ability to pay alimony, and to exclude them without sufficient findings is error.

Redden v. redden, 2020 UT App 22 (filed February 13, 2020). ¶32 Spencer (Husband) next argues that the court exceeded […]

Read More
April 18, 2019
An attorney's failure to comply with the standards of professionalism and civility is not grounds to set aside a judgment.

Cox v. Hefley, 2019 UT App 60 (Filed April 18, 2019). In this case, a Mother and Father signed an […]

Read More
February 13, 2020
Credit card debts that represent an expense should not be double counted in the court’s needs analysis.

Redden v. Redden, 2020, UT App 22 (Filed February 13, 2020). Husband conceded that some of the expenses underlying the […]

Read More
envelopephone-handsetmap-markermagnifiercrossmenuarrow-up-circle