Blog

People often assume that once their ex remarries, financial obligations from the divorce automatically shrink or disappear. It’s not that simple.

In short: when it comes to the effects on child support and/or alimony, remarriage sometimes matters, sometimes doesn’t, and sometimes changes everything

Below is a clear breakdown of how remarriage affects support obligations in Utah, backed by statutes and appellate decisions.

Child Support and Remarriage: What Changes?

Child support is based on parents’ incomes, not new spouses’ incomes.

Utah’s child support system is grounded in the principle that both parents—not their new spouses—are responsible for supporting their children. Utah uses an income-shares model (Utah Code Title 81, Chapter 6, Part 4), which bases child support primarily on:

• the number of overnights each parent has with the minor children;
• each parent’s gross monthly income (from both earned and unearned sources); and
• the statutory child support calculation guidelines.

A new spouse’s income is not part of the calculation. Child support is principally based on the parents’ incomes, not the financial circumstances of people who aren’t legally responsible for the child. So, the court typically would not include the new spouse’s income into the support worksheets. if your ex remarries.

Remarriage can indirectly affect child support through “changed circumstances.”

Remarriage can in some circumstances still change child support in indirect ways. For example, an existing child support obligation can be adjusted “if there has been a substantial change in circumstances,” and that may include:

• material changes in child custody;
• material changes in the relative wealth or assets of the parties;
• material changes of 30% or more in the income of a parent;
• material changes in the employment potential and ability of a parent to earn;
• material changes in the medical needs of the child; or
• material changes in the legal responsibilities of either parent for the support of others.

(See Utah Code § 81-6-212(3) (emphasis added))

What about the child’s new stepparent supporting my children financially?

A stepparent has zero legal duty to support a stepchild in Utah. Courts will not reduce a biological parent’s child support because a stepparent is voluntarily contributing. One of the main reasons for this policy is that a stepparent who may be supporting a stepchild voluntarily can stop supporting that child at any time.

Remarriage alone does not eliminate or reduce child support. If remarriage leads to a legitimate, measurable financial change, that can open the door to modification (but usually does not).

Alimony and Remarriage: The Rules Are Much More Direct

Remarriage can have a profound effect on alimony.

Utah law treats remarriage differently depending on whether the recipient or the payor remarries.

1. What happens when the recipient of alimony remarries or cohabits?

Utah Code § 81-4-505 (Termination of alimony) provides:

• (1)
  • (a) Except as provided in Subsection (1)(b), or unless a decree of divorce specifically provides otherwise, any order of the court that a payor pay alimony to a payee automatically terminates upon the remarriage or death of that payee.
  • (b) If the remarriage of the payee is annulled and found to be void ab initio, the payment of alimony shall resume if the payor is made a party to the action of annulment and the payor’s rights are determined.
• (2) If a payor establishes that a payee cohabits with another individual during the pendency of the divorce action, the court:
  • (a) may not order the payor to pay temporary alimony to the payee; and
  • (b) shall terminate any order that the payor pay temporary alimony to the payee.
• (3)
  • (a) Subject to Subsection (3)(b), the court shall terminate an order that a payor pay alimony to a payee if the payor establishes that, after the order for alimony is issued, the payee cohabits with another individual even if the payee is not cohabiting with the individual when the payor files the motion to terminate alimony.
  • (b) A payor may not seek termination of alimony under Subsection (3)(a) later than one year after the day on which the payor knew or should have known that the payee has cohabited with another individual.

Thus, unless:

• the decree explicitly says alimony continues after remarriage (which is rare for a decree to provide); or
• if the remarriage is annulled in conformity with the provisions of § 81-4-505,

remarriage automatically terminates alimony at the time of remarriage.

Even if the recipient doesn’t remarry, alimony terminates if after the order for alimony is issued:

• the recipient begins “cohabiting” with another partner in a marriage-like relationship; and
• the payor establishes within one year after the day on which the payor knew or should have known that the payee has cohabited with another individual.

So what constitutes cohabitation in Utah? What is the definition? See Kinsey v. Kinsey, 557 P.3d 586, 590-591, 2024 UT App 120:

¶13 Up until 2022, the term was not defined by statute in the divorce context. Instead, its meaning had been developed through the common law. Early use of the term in the broader domestic context explained that “the word ‘cohabit’ as used in the statutes has had the ordinary common meaning––to live together as husband and wife.” State v. Barlow, 107 Utah 292, 153 P.2d 647, 651 (1944); see also Haddow v. Haddow, 707 P.2d 669, 671 (Utah 1985) (citing dictionaries for the proposition that “cohabitation” means “to live together as husband and wife” (quotation simplified)). In 1995, the statute allowing a former spouse to terminate alimony was amended to include the term “cohabitating” for the first time. See Utah Code § 30-3-5(9) (1995).⁴ Because the statutory amendment did not define the term, courts applied the meaning of “cohabitation” that had been established by this existing line of domestic law cases. See, e.g., Hill v. Hill, 968 P.2d 866, 868–69 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (supporting the practice of applying the “Haddow definition of cohabitation” in cases determining the termination of alimony); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 918 P.2d 159, 160 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (relying on the Haddow formulation to determine if alimony should be terminated); Sigg v. Sigg, 905 P.2d 908, 917 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (same).

¶14 In 2020, our supreme court drew on this same line of cases and held that the “key question” in a cohabitation case was whether the couple had “entered into a relationship akin to that generally existing between husband and wife.” Scott v. Scott, 2020 UT 54, ¶ 35, 472 P.3d 897 (quotation simplified). But the supreme court also recognized that it could be “difficult to define” the precise contours of this relationship. Id. (quotation simplified). To assist lower courts, the supreme court drew upon past cases and “identifie[d]” the “general hallmarks” of such a relationship. Id. (quotation simplified); see also Myers, 2011 UT 65 ¶ 24, 266 P.3d 806. These hallmarks included “a shared residence, an intimate relationship, … a common household involving shared expenses and shared decisions, … the length and continuity of the relationship, the amount of time the couple spends together, the nature of the activities the couple engages in, and whether the couple spends vacations and holidays together.” Scott, 2020 UT 54, ¶ 36, 472 P.3d 897 (quotation simplified).

*****

[U]nder the common law, the key question is the alimony recipient “entered into a relationship akin to that generally existing between husband and wife.” Scott, 2020 UT 54, ¶ 35, 472 P.3d 897 (quotation simplified). And under this approach, we look to see if the “hallmarks of marriage” were present. Id. (quotation simplified). These hallmarks include

• a shared residence, an intimate relationship, … a common household involving shared expenses and shared decisions, … the length and continuity of the relationship, the amount of time the couple spends together, the nature of the activities the couple engages in, and whether the couple spends vacations and holidays together.

Id. ¶ 36 (quotation simplified).

This matters because a recipient might avoid remarriage to keep alimony flowing—but if the relationship functions like a marriage, the payor can move to terminate.

What happens when the payor remarries?

Getting remarried does not get the alimony payor off the hook. A payor’s remarriage is not a basis for automatic termination or reduction in the Utah Code or in Utah caselaw.

Voluntary financial choices made after divorce—like remarrying, supporting stepchildren, or buying a larger home—don’t justify lowering one’s alimony obligation to the former spouse.

So, can child support or alimony be lowered or eliminated when your ex remarries?

Child support:

Remarriage does not automatically change child support. Frankly, remarriage rarely, if ever, affects child support. Remarriage may only matter indirectly if it changes custody, income, or the child’s needs.

Alimony:

• Unless the divorce decree otherwise provides, if the recipient remarries, alimony ends immediately.
• If the recipient cohabits, alimony may be terminated if the payor proves cohabitation in court within the time the payor is given to establish that fact.
• If the payor remarries, nothing automatically changes.

This is one of those situations where the law draws clean, bright lines in some places and mushier, fact dependent lines in others. Knowing the rules ahead of time prevents unpleasant surprises, especially when remarriage brings new relationships, new households, and new financial circumstances into the picture.

Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277