Utah's Divorce 90-Day Waiting Period Changed to 30 Days

April 11, 2018

The Utah legislature passed Senate Bill 25, which changes the waiting minimum period for divorces from 90 days to 30 days. Effective May 8, 2018, Utah Code 30-3-18 (1) will now read:

"30-3-18. Waiting period for hearing after filing for divorce...(1) Unless the court finds that extraordinary circumstances exist and otherwise orders, no hearing for decree of divorce may be held by the court until 30 days has elapsed from the filing of the complaint, but the court may make interim orders as it considers just and equitable."

To conform with Senate Bill 25 (2018), the Utah Supreme Court approved a change to Rules 101 and 105 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedures.  Effective May 8, 2018, Rule 101 (m) will be amended and will read:

"(m) Motions to judge. The following motions must be to the judge to whom the case is assigned: motion for alternative service; motion to waive 30-day waiting period; motion to waive divorce education class; motion for leave to withdraw after a case has been certified as ready for trial; and motions in limine. A court may provide that other motions be considered by the judge."

Likewise, Rule 105 was amended to change the reference to the 90-day waiting period to the new 30-day waiting period.  Effective May 8, 2018, Rule 105 now will read:

"Rule 105. Shortening 30 day waiting period in divorce actions. A motion for a hearing less than 30 days from the date the petition was filed shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the date on which the petition for divorce was filed and the facts constituting extraordinary circumstances."

What does this all mean?  Simply, all divorces before this change had to wait at least 90 days to get divorced...and now the wait is only 30 days.

December 28, 2018
Income Can be Imputed Even if Last Job was 19 Years Ago

Hartvigsen v. Hartvigsen This is an appeal from a district court’s award of alimony in the aftermath of a contentious […]

Read More
September 5, 2018
Alimony Battle: “Contemplated in the original decree" vs. “Not foreseeable at the time of the divorce.”

And the winner is . . .  "not foreseeable at the time of the divorce" but based on evidence that was […]

Read More
March 14, 2019
Factors to consider regarding dissipation of marital assets.

Marroquin v. Marroquin, 2019 UT App 38 (Filed March 14, 2019). This is a good case for looking at relevant […]

Read More