Opinion
Case No. 20061084-CA.
Filed October 18, 2007. NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
Appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department, 910902969 The Honorable Stanton M. Taylor.
Jerry D. Reynolds and Jeremy M. Shorts, Provo, for Appellant.
Robert L. Neeley, Ogden, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Billings.
OPINION
This is the second appeal from a modification of a divorce decree that extended Wesley G. Van Dyke's (Husband) obligation to pay alimony to Joye Van Dyke (Wife) for an additional eight years and three months.See Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 2004 UT App 37, ¶ 8, 86 P.3d 767. In the first appeal, this court remanded to the trial court for consideration and findings regarding whether "there had been a `substantial material change in circumstances not foreseeable at the time of the divorce' [and] . . . to determine whether there were `extenuating circumstances' justifying the modification of the alimony award." Id. ¶ 17. On remand, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Formal findings of fact and conclusions of law had not previously been entered, only a memorandum decision, despite Husband's motion requesting such findings and conclusions.
In this appeal, Husband contends that the trial court failed to enter adequate findings regarding his income and ability to pay alimony and, thus, erred in ordering him to pay continuing alimony to Wife. We determine that the trial court's findings of fact are inadequate and therefore remand for further proceedings.
"`[O]rders distributing property and setting alimony will not be lightly disturbed,' [and thus,] we review alimony awards under an abuse of discretion standard." Olsen v. Olsen, 2007 UT App 296, ¶ 9, 586 Utah Adv. Rep. 6 (quoting Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072, 1074 (Utah 1985)). Similarly, we review modifications of alimony for an abuse of discretion. See Sill v. Sill, 2007 UT App 173, ¶ 8, 164 P.3d 173. To the extent questions of law are concerned, however, we review for correctness. See id.
In determining whether to order alimony and the amount of alimony, Utah Code section 30-3-5(8)(a) requires trial courts to consider "at least" certain named factors, including, in part: "(i) the financial condition and needs of the recipient spouse; (ii) the recipient's earning capacity or ability to produce income; [and] (iii) the ability of the payor spouse to provide support." Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(8)(a)(i)-(iii) (Supp. 2007); see also Rehn v. Rehn, 1999 UT App 41, ¶ 6, 974 P.2d 306 (In determining the amount of alimony, "a trial court must consider the needs of the recipient spouse; the earning capacity of the recipient spouse; [and] the ability of the obligor spouse to provide support.").
Trial courts are required to make findings on each of these factors. The "findings of fact must show that the court's judgment or decree follows logically from, and is supported by, the evidence. The findings should be sufficiently detailed and include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the ultimate conclusion on each factual issue was reached." Andrus v. Andrus, 2007 UT App 291, ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). "A trial court's failure to provide adequate findings is reversible error when the facts are not clear from the record." Id. In Andrus, this court reversed and remanded where the findings of fact did not address the husband's "tax obligations and monthly net income," and the "trial court's findings of fact [were] not sufficiently detailed to show the steps it took determining Husband's disposable income." Id. ¶ 18.
We are presented with a similar problem in this case. In its findings of fact, the trial court referred to Husband and his present wife's gross income, not their net income. There is no recognition of tax deductions or any other deductions. Husband also asserts, and we agree, that it is not clear if the trial court included child support received by his current spouse in the family's gross income. The trial court also found that Husband's "monthly expenses of $5,111.95 are excessive." This is the only finding concerning Husband's expenses. As a result, it is impossible to know what expenses the trial court found to be excessive and whether or not taxes were included in the expenses. Furthermore, while the trial court may include the net income of Husband's present wife in the calculation, it must also include the reasonable expenses incurred by the family for the wife and her children. See Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶ 11, 983 P.2d 1103 (noting trial court should conduct an in depth analysis of the parties' circumstances, including those of a new spouse).
Husband further argues that if his net income and reasonable expenses are properly determined, he should not be obligated to pay alimony, given Wife's current financial circumstances. We are unable to determine if that is true without more detailed findings, and we therefore decline Husband's request that we hold that Husband has no further obligation to pay alimony to Wife.
In sum, we remand to the trial court for a review of the evidence presented and entry of detailed and adequate findings concerning both Husband's and Wife's net incomes and reasonable expenses, and any appropriate adjustment of alimony.
WE CONCUR:
Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge
Judith M. Billings, Judge