Equalization of Income is perhaps better described as Equalization of Poverty

April 16, 2020

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.

April 16, 2020
Imputing Income and Considering Income of New Spouse in Alimony Modification Case.

Issertell v. Issertell, 2020 UT App 62 (Filed April 16, 2020). In setting alimony, “[t]he court may consider the subsequent […]

Read More
April 18, 2019
Parties cannot stipulate away the district court’s statutory responsibility to conduct a best-interest analysis.

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

Read More
January 22, 2021
Special Master orders are effective as orders when made and a court may find contempt for disobeying them.

Thomas v. Thomas, 2021 UT App 8 (Filed January 22, 2021) Jeremy and Jody Tasker Thomas were divorced in 2013. […]

Read More