Alimony: Is Padding Expenses Justified? Or Risky?

December 28, 2018

A Court May Decline to Accept Claimed Expenses that Are Overstated and Unsupported. This is an appeal from a district court’s award of alimony in the aftermath of a contentious divorce. Wife contends that the court abused its discretion when it declined to accept her claimed expenses at face value–even when the claimed expenses by Wife had no relation to historical needs, exceeded the Husband’s take-home pay, were overstated, and Wife failed to provide credible evidence regarding finances and expenses–as opposed to Husband’s testimony which was credible, detailed and specific.

Hartvigsen v. Hartvigsen, 2018 UT App 238 (Filed December 28, 2018)

Click HERE to read entire case.

July 27, 2018
The “Independent” Standard of Review on Objections to Commissioners Clarified

In this appeal, the court clarified that an objection to a ruling by a commissioner is independent, and not a […]

Read More
July 12, 2018
When a parent can show all the factors for the “optional” 40% parent time schedule, is a court required to order it? No, it still has discretion.

Lay v. Lay, 2018 UT Ct App 137 (July 12, 2018) Utah statutes have a “minimum” parent time (“visitation”) schedule […]

Read More
July 14, 2022
Utah law requires only a fair and equitable, not an equal, division of the marital debts

Fox v. Fox, 2022 UT App 88 (Filed July 14, 2022) The parties married in 1997 and wife filed for […]

Read More
envelopephone-handsetmap-markermagnifiercrossmenuarrow-up-circle