## Facts

- The parties divorced in 1976 after a 31-year marriage and four children who were adults and independent.
- The divorce decree distributed marital property without dispute and awarded the former wife alimony of $275 per month while she lived in the family home and until it was sold, then $350 per month thereafter.
- At divorce, the former husband had worked nearly 30 years for U.S. Steel earning about $18,000 annually and received a $300 per month Veterans pension.
- At divorce, the former wife was unemployed but qualified to work as a school teacher.
- About ten months after the decree, the former husband petitioned to eliminate alimony, asserting the former wife’s subsequent employment made alimony unnecessary.
- By the time of the petition, the former wife was employed as a school teacher earning $636.27 per month and had other fixed income of about $150 per month.
- The former husband conceded his own income and economic status had not diminished since the divorce; the petition relied solely on the former wife’s increased earnings.
- After a plenary hearing, the trial court declined to terminate alimony but reduced it from $350 to $100 per month; the former husband appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a former wife’s post-decree employment and increased income, without any reduction in the former husband’s financial condition, requires termination (rather than reduction) of alimony.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by continuing alimony at a reduced amount after considering the parties’ circumstances.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the order continuing alimony at $100 per month.
- The court held that the former wife’s employment and partial self-support did not compel elimination of alimony.
- The court concluded the trial court acted within its equitable discretion by reducing, but not terminating, the award after a full hearing and consideration of relevant factors.

## Legal Principles

- Alimony modification depends on an overall equitable assessment of the parties’ circumstances, not a single factor viewed in isolation.
- A change in circumstances may justify modifying alimony, but the remedy (reduction versus termination) is committed to the trial court’s discretion.
- Post-decree employment and increased income of the recipient spouse does not automatically require termination of alimony, particularly after a long marriage and where the payor’s financial condition has not worsened.
- Appellate review is deferential; continuation of alimony will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion after consideration of appropriate factors, including present and future effects on both parties and the policies reflected in domestic-relations law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a reduced alimony award because the recipient spouse’s return to work, standing alone, did not require ending support, and the trial court reasonably balanced the long marriage, the parties’ relative financial positions, and equitable considerations in setting continued alimony at $100 per month.


Carter v. Carter, 584 P.2d 904 (Utah 1978)