Short answer: In Canter v. Canter, 2026 UT App 168, decided November 5, 2026, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld $8,623 a month in alimony against a bank executive with about $526,500 in annual income. The court reaffirmed that judges must assess each spouse's post-divorce expenses line by line in light of the marital standard of living, not by cutting the marital budget in half. It held that a $250,000 finder's fee paid to a jointly owned LLC counted entirely as the husband's income because he earned it. It also sent the case back because the husband paid $85,000 of his own attorney fees from an undivided marital account while the court's order said each side would pay its own fees.
The Facts
The parties were married more than 24 years. The husband, a senior vice president of a bank, reported W-2 income of about $300,000 in 2021 and about $527,000 to $529,000 in 2022 and 2023. In 2021, he also received a roughly $250,000 finder's fee for helping arrange financing for a land development, paid to an LLC the spouses owned 50/50. The wife had worked outside the home very little during the marriage, and the parties stipulated to her income at $2,896 a month. Canter, 2026 UT App 168, ¶¶ 3, 12, 16.
At trial, the court averaged the husband's income over three years, including the full finder's fee, for an income of $526,531 a year. It set the wife's reasonable expenses at $11,519 a month, subtracted her income, and ordered alimony of $8,623 a month for the length of the marriage, plus child support of $2,448 a month. Id. ¶¶ 18–19.
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
Needs Are Not Half the Marital Budget
The husband's forensic accountant computed a marital standard of living of about $14,214 a month and allocated each spouse roughly half. The wife's accountant explained that many household expenses, such as housing, utilities, insurance, phone service, and subscriptions, have to be paid in full by each spouse after separation. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the wife's approach. Utah courts follow a three-step alimony analysis: determine each spouse's reasonable needs in light of the marital standard of living, determine how much of the recipient's need the recipient's own income covers, and then decide whether the payor can cover some or all of the shortfall. Id. ¶ 46 (citing Fox v. Fox, 2022 UT App 88, ¶ 20). The first step is done expense by expense. Courts should not total the couple's pre-separation spending and divide it in half, because that would prevent each spouse from separately enjoying the lifestyle they shared. Id. ¶¶ 47, 50.
The husband argued that the wife's $11,519 in expenses was nearly the entire household budget. The court called that framework legally incorrect. Because the husband did not challenge any specific line item, his appeal on expenses failed. Id. ¶¶ 49, 51.
The same principle appears in Smith v. Smith, 2024 UT App 28, which the Utah Supreme Court has agreed to review. Id. ¶ 47. Watch for that decision, because it could refine how courts apply the marital standard of living.
Income Paid Through an LLC Belongs to the Spouse Who Earned It
The husband argued that because the finder's fee was paid to an LLC the spouses owned equally, half of it should be treated as the wife's income. The trial court attributed the entire fee to the husband, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The evidence showed the fee was a one-time commission for his services, and the wife testified that she had no knowledge of the LLC and had to subpoena its operating agreement. Id. ¶¶ 53–56.
For business owners and executives, the lesson is that routing compensation through an entity does not change who earned it. Courts look at the substance of the payment. See Self-Employment Income and Child Support in Utah and Divorce and LLCs in Utah.
A Rebuttal Expert Without a Case-in-Chief Expert
The wife did not designate an accountant when case-in-chief expert disclosures were due. After the husband disclosed his forensic accountant, she timely designated her own accountant as a rebuttal expert. The husband moved to exclude that expert, arguing that a party with the burden of proof on alimony cannot designate a rebuttal expert without first designating a case-in-chief expert. Id. ¶¶ 5–6, 9.
The Court of Appeals rejected that argument. Nothing in Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(4)(C) requires a case-in-chief designation before a rebuttal designation, and alimony can be proved with a credible financial declaration and supporting documents, without any expert. Id. ¶¶ 37–39. The court noted the practical reality that many divorcing spouses cannot afford an expert unless the other side hires one. Id. ¶ 39.
The strategy carries limits. A rebuttal-only expert is confined to rebutting the other side's expert, and the court may keep that expert out of the case in chief. Id. ¶ 40.
Paying Your Lawyer From the Marital Account
Before trial, the husband controlled a marital bank account. After trial, the wife subpoenaed its statements and learned that $85,000 had been paid from it to the husband's attorneys before the account was divided. She had paid her own fees with credit cards and, after the division, out of her share of the estate. Id. ¶¶ 22–23, 27.
The trial court had ordered each party to pay their own fees. The Court of Appeals held that the husband's use of marital funds was effectively an award of $42,500 of his fees against the wife, made without the required findings of need, ability to pay, and reasonableness. The court remanded with two options: order the husband to pay the wife $42,500, or make findings that support a partial fee award to the husband. Id. ¶¶ 59–62 (citing Miner v. Miner, 2021 UT App 77, ¶ 108).
If one spouse controls the money during the case, track where it goes. See Temporary Orders in a Utah Divorce When You Own a Business and Hidden Assets and Forensic Accounting in Utah Divorce.
What This Means for High-Income Divorces
Build the financial declaration line by line, with documentation tied to how the family actually spent money during the marriage.
Expect courts to recognize that two households cost more than one. A proposal that simply halves the marital budget will not hold up.
Bonuses, commissions, and fees paid through an entity will usually count as the earner's income.
Decide early whether to retain a forensic accountant, and know that the other side may respond with a rebuttal expert.
Keep marital funds intact during the case or document every use. Paying your own legal fees from an undivided account can be undone.
The current alimony factors appear at Utah Code § 81-4-502. Canter applied the prior version of the statute, Utah Code § 30-3-5(10) (2023), which contained the same core factors: the recipient's financial condition and needs, the recipient's earning capacity, and the payor's ability to provide support. See Alimony in Utah When a Spouse Owns a Business.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do Utah courts calculate alimony for a high earner?
Courts determine each spouse's reasonable needs line by line in light of the marital standard of living, subtract the recipient's own income, and then decide whether the payor can cover the shortfall. In Canter v. Canter, 2026 UT App 168, that analysis produced $8,623 a month in alimony against income of about $526,500 a year.
Can a Utah court just split the marital budget in half to set alimony?
No. The Utah Court of Appeals has said courts should not total the couple's pre-separation expenses and divide them in half, because many expenses, like housing and utilities, must be paid in full by each spouse after divorce.
Is income paid to a jointly owned LLC split between spouses for alimony?
Not necessarily. In Canter, a $250,000 finder's fee paid to an LLC the spouses owned equally was attributed entirely to the husband because he performed the work that earned it.
Can I pay my divorce lawyer from a joint account?
Doing so can be reversed. In Canter, the husband paid $85,000 of his attorney fees from an undivided marital account, and the Court of Appeals required the trial court either to order him to pay the wife $42,500 or to make findings supporting a fee award in his favor.
If Alimony Is at Issue in Your Divorce
High-income alimony cases turn on documentation, expert strategy, and how income and spending are presented from the start. Contact Jeremy Miller at Pearson Butler to discuss how these issues apply to your case. See also High Net Worth Divorce in Utah.