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.

October 31, 2019
A parent who maintains a relationship with an abusive partner jeopardizes a child’s safety, and may risk termination of parental rights.

In Re L.M., 2019 UT App 174, (Filed October 31, 2019). In a termination of parental rights case, a Mother […]

Read More
April 18, 2019
Stipulations signed by a party but not by the attorney, may be enforced and binding.

Cox v. Hefley, 2019 UT App 60 (Filed April 18, 2019). In this case, a Mother had brought a petition […]

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