Issertell v. Issertell, 2020 UT App 62 (Filed April 16, 2020).

¶23 [Alimony recipient] argues that “equalization of poverty was not
appropriate when there [was] money available to pay the alimony
obligation.” Her premises for this conclusion are that [payor’s]
current wife has been “paying all his monthly obligations other
than alimony and child support[,] . . . there were no written
agreements between them that he would ever pay her back[, and
t]herefore, these were gifts and should be considered as part of his
gross income in being able to pay his alimony obligation.” But this
argument is unsound.
¶24 “Equalization of income, which is perhaps better described
as equalization of poverty, is a [district] court’s remedy for those
situations in which one party does not earn enough to cover his
or her demonstrated needs and the other party does not have the
ability to pay enough to cover those needs.” Keyes v. Keyes, 2015
UT App 114, ¶ 39, 351 P.3d 90.

Issertell v. Issertell, 2020 UT App 62 (Filed April 16, 2020).

Click HERE to review entire case.