## Facts

- Robert G. Naylor (husband) and Julia Lee Naylor (wife) divorced in 1978 after approximately eleven and a half years of marriage; they had one child.
- The 1978 decree was entered on a stipulation and property settlement.
- At divorce, the court found Robert’s net earnings were about $2,600 per month and Julia’s net earnings were $702 per month.
- The decree ordered $500 per month alimony for five years and $250 per month child support until the child reached age 21 or left the home, subject to modification.
- In 1981, Julia moved to modify; the matter was tried in 1983.
- By 1983, Robert’s income had materially increased, including a higher salary, substantial bonuses, and significant tax-deferred pension/profit-sharing contributions; the court found his net income after taxes had increased to about $75,000 per year.
- Julia’s income increased only slightly (to about $720 per month) and she had not achieved the expected self-sufficiency contemplated at the time of the decree.
- Monthly expenses for Julia and the child increased from about $1,450 at divorce to about $2,180 at the hearing, attributed to cost-of-living increases and the child’s needs as a teenager.
- Evidence showed Julia borrowed more than $13,000 after the divorce to meet expenses despite receiving her income, alimony, and child support.
- The trial court modified the decree by extending alimony through 1987 and increasing it from $500 to $600 per month, increasing child support from $250 to $400 per month, and awarding Julia attorney’s fees.
- Robert appealed, challenging the alimony extension, the finding of a material change warranting increased support, and the attorney-fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in extending the duration of a term-limited alimony award.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding of a material change in circumstances justifying increased alimony and child support.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the wife in the modification proceeding.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the modification order in all respects.
- The court held the trial court had continuing authority to modify support orders upon a material change in circumstances.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence of changed circumstances, including the husband’s increased ability to pay and the wife’s continuing need and increased expenses.
- The court held extending and modestly increasing alimony and increasing child support were within the trial court’s discretion.
- The court affirmed the attorney-fee award based on the wife’s inability to pay and the husband’s ability to pay.

## Legal Principles

- A divorce court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify support and maintenance orders when a material and substantial change in circumstances is shown.
- A term-limited alimony award is not immune from modification; it may be extended or adjusted if statutory modification standards are met.
- Material change analysis may consider: (i) the payor’s increased earning capacity and ability to pay, (ii) the recipient’s unmet expectation of becoming self-supporting, and (iii) increased needs from inflation and child-related expenses.
- In domestic matters, attorney’s fees may be awarded when the requesting spouse lacks the ability to pay and the other spouse has the ability to do so.
- Appellate review of support modification and fee awards is for abuse of discretion; supported findings will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the extension and increase of alimony and the increase of child support because the evidence showed a substantial post-decree change in the parties’ finances and needs, and it affirmed an attorney-fee award where the wife lacked resources and the husband had the ability to pay.


Naylor v. Naylor, 700 P.2d 707 (Utah 1985)