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 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
June 17, 2021
Gifts from one spouse to the other usually are marital property and not separate property.

Mahanthi v. Nakkina, UT Ct. App. No. 20190750-CA (Filed June 17, 2021). The trial court awarding Mother the jewelry Father […]

Read More
February 21, 2020
There is no statute or common-law rule allow a court to expand or add to a stipulated nondisparagement clause contained in a final decree of divorce (not involving children).

Robertson v. Stevens, 2020 UT App 29 (Filed February 21, 2020) In this post divorce case wherein the decree provided […]

Read More