In Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2026 UT App 86 (filed May 29, 2026), the Utah Court of Appeals provided important guidance on two recurring issues in Utah divorce cases: imputing income to a voluntarily underemployed spouse and the role of marital fault when setting alimony—particularly when the parties’ combined resources fall short of meeting both sides’ reasonable needs.
The decision reinforces trial courts’ broad discretion while clarifying that fault-based adjustments to living expenses can serve equity rather than punishment, even in shortfall situations.
Background and Key Facts
The Jenkins divorced after a 23 year marriage that produced four children. The Husband worked as a mechanic for about 25 years. His gross annual income in the years immediately preceding the divorce filing was substantial—approximately $150,000 in 2019, $143,000 in 2020, and $146,000 in 2021. After the Wife filed for divorce, his reported earnings dropped to roughly $96,000–$101,000 in 2022–2023.
The Wife had primarily been a homemaker during the marriage and later began part-time work as a hairstylist. The district court found that the Husband’s extramarital affairs, spending marital funds on paramours, and related financial and personal misconduct substantially contributed to the breakdown of the marriage. The Wife also presented testimony that Husband threatened to reduce his earnings so she would receive less alimony.
District Court Rulings
After trial, the Judge “imputed” a income to Evan of $9,904 monthly, finding he was voluntary underemployment based in part on his higher recent earnings data. The court also imputed some income to Kristine based on full-time hairstylist capacity.
“Imputation” means the court assumes a party could be earning a specific amount of money and uses that figure when calculating alimony.
On alimony, the court calculated the Wife’s needs and the Husband’s ability to pay, then adjusted Husband’s proposed living expenses downward in light of his fault. This created a situation in which Husband had a monthly surplus but the parties still faced an overall shortfall relative to both parties’ needs. The court allocated the shortfall equally and ordered him to pay Wife $2,980 per month in alimony for a term equal to the length of the marriage.
Court of Appeals Ruling
1. Income Imputation for Voluntary Underemployment
The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Courts may impute income when a spouse is voluntarily underemployed. Relevant considerations include historical earnings, employment opportunities, the timing of any income reduction relative to the divorce filing, and evidence of intent (such as threats to earn less). The district court’s findings were sufficiently detailed and supported by the record, including the precipitous drop in income after the divorce petition and credible testimony about Husband’s statements and capacity. The appellate court rejected arguments that the imputation was speculative or that external factors (such as a change in business ownership) fully explained the reduction.
2. Fault, Expense Adjustments, and Shortfall Allocation
Utah Code 81-4-502(2) expressly permits courts to consider the fault of the parties when determining whether to award alimony and the terms of any award. Utah Code 81-4-501 defines “fault” as including, among other things, engaging in sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse or substantially undermining the other party’s financial stability, when that conduct substantially contributed to the breakup of the marriage.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s use of fault findings to reduce Husband’s claimed living expenses. The trial court explained that the reductions were not imposed as punishment but to prevent inequity—specifically, to allow Wife a closer approximation of the marital standard of living given limited overall resources. The existence of a shortfall does not bar such equitable adjustments. The equal allocation of the remaining shortfall was likewise within the court’s discretion.
Practical Implications for Utah Family Law
The Jenkins case underscores several points of practical importance:
First, evidence of voluntary underemployment matters. Timing of income drops, historical earnings, statements about reducing income, and capacity to earn more can support imputation even when a spouse claims external causes for lower earnings. Detailed findings remain essential for appellate review.
Second, fault retains a meaningful (if carefully cabined) role. While need and ability to pay remain central, proven fault that substantially contributed to the divorce can justify adjusting claimed expenses or the overall terms of alimony to achieve a fair result. Courts distinguish equity-oriented adjustments from pure punishment.
Third, shortfall cases require careful balancing. When combined resources cannot fully support both parties at the marital standard, trial courts retain flexibility to allocate the burden equitably, including through fault-informed expense adjustments.
Alimony determinations remain highly fact-specific and discretionary. Outcomes depend on the quality of financial evidence, credibility determinations, and the precise statutory factors.
This article provides general information about a recent Utah appellate decision and is not legal advice. Alimony and related financial issues in divorce are fact-intensive. If you are facing questions about spousal support, income imputation, or the potential impact of marital misconduct in a Utah divorce, the attorneys at the Law Office of Wiser & Wiser are available to discuss your specific circumstances. Contact us here or (855) 254-2600.
No responses yet