If you have spent any time searching for information about alimony, you already know the truth: most people hate the idea of paying it, most people love the idea of receiving it, and almost everyone is confused about why it exists in 2025. Utah’s recent migration of divorce law to Title 81 did not fundamentally change that reality. The statute reorganized things, but the basic principles remain essentially what they were 20, 40, even 60 years ago.
Let’s strip the issue down to the essentials.
Is alimony still necessary?
Is it outdated?
And why can’t each divorcing spouse simply walk away with whatever he or she earned?
Reasonable minds can differ on all three questions—but the law is what it is, and its logic (and sometimes illogic) can be explained whether you personally agree with the reasoning behind it.
A Short History: Why Alimony Exists in the First Place
Alimony did not originate as a feel-good safety net. Historically, it came from a very blunt reality:
For most of history marriage was—in a significant way—an economic arrangement where husbands earned income and wives were legally and socially barred from doing the same.
If a woman left a marriage, or was left by her husband, she often had no way to support herself. Courts created alimony not as a privilege, but as a basic survival mechanism.
Fast-forward: women can (and do) earn income in every field today. Utah’s workforce participation is strong. Yet the traditional structure of marriage still persists in many households—someone stays home with kids, someone earns the paycheck. That economic bargain keeps alimony relevant, even if the old gender assumptions that shaped it are fading.
This is why Utah courts continue to treat alimony as a tool to prevent one spouse from suffering a severe financial freefall caused by marital roles.
Some see that as fair. Others see it as patronizing or outdated. Both perspectives have a point.
Why Not Just “Take What You Earned”?
This is the most common misconception I see in my practice. The logic seems obvious:
“I earned the money. I worked the job. I should keep what I produced during the marriage.”
But Utah law—like every other state—does not agree. And the principles underlying the policy do make sense (accept it).
Marriage is legally treated as an economic partnership (not purely as an economic partnership, but that is one aspect of a marriage in the eyes of the law).
Utah’s marital-property and alimony rules (now in Title 81, Chapter 4, Part 5) start with a foundational assumption: when two people marry, they often make economic decisions jointly, even if only one of them earns a paycheck.
- One spouse stays home with kids and manages the household affairs.
- One spouse reduces his/her (still typically her) hours to support the other’s career.
- One spouse’s education or business is started and/or funded using marital funds. One spouse’s career/career aspirations become subordinate to supporting the other’s.
- One spouse can work full-time because the other spouse is a stay-at-home spouse/parent.
These decisions create joint investments and joint sacrifices. Utah law tries—with varying degrees of fairness and success—to unwind those investments when a marriage ends.
Utah courts look at the standard of living created during the marriage.
This is the part people like least, but it’s the law.
Under Utah case law (still applied after Title 81), the court assesses:
- The parties’ needs;
- The ability to pay;
- The marital standard of living;
- The goal of avoiding one spouse being “economically crippled” while the other is comfortable; and
- The public policy of preventing a party from becoming a public charge (i.e., a welfare case)
The logic is simple: if both spouses built a certain life together for 10, 20, or 30 years, one spouse should not enjoy all the benefits of that life while the other’s standard of living plummets.
The Income Equalization Debate
Utah courts routinely say: “Alimony is not meant to equalize incomes.”
That is true as a formal principle. Under Title 81, just like under Title 30 before it, nothing in the statute instructs judges to equalize incomes. The Utah Supreme Court has repeatedly said the purpose of alimony is need-based, not egalitarian.
But in the real world?
When courts calculate one spouse’s expenses, then subtract their income, and then order the higher-earning spouse to make up the difference until both end up with roughly the same leftover dollars each month…
It walks, talks, and quacks an awful lot like income equalization.
To be fair, judges are not necessarily doing it on purpose. They are working within a system that forces them to:
- Maintain the marital standard of living (as much as reasonably possible),
- Address demonstrated need, and
- Avoid leaving either party in “luxury” while the other is in “poverty.”
Those overlapping goals often naturally drift toward equalizing the parties’ post-divorce lifestyles, especially in long-term marriages where only one spouse earned income.
Some people see this as essential fairness. Others see it as economic punishment. Both interpretations can be defended. But pretending the tension is not there would be dishonest.
Is Alimony Outdated?
You tell me.
Imagine Marriage A:
- Married 22 years
- Husband worked full-time
- Wife stayed home with three children
- Wife has been out of the workforce for 18 years
- Husband earns $165,000/year
- Wife can earn $18/hour after a year of retraining
If alimony did not exist, Wife would crash financially, and Husband would be virtually unaffected. The economic harm falls almost entirely on one person, even though both agreed to the roles during the marriage. You do not have to be sentimental to see why Utah courts are not going to let that happen.
Now consider Marriage B:
- Married 7 years
- Both spouses worked
- No kids
- Each kept separate finances or mostly separate finances
- Neither spouse made career sacrifices for the other
Is alimony needed here? Utah judges increasingly recognize that in two-income marriages, especially short and medium-term ones, alimony feels like forced charity. So, in a scenario like Marriage B, it comes as no surprise that alimony is rarely, if ever, awarded.
So… Is Alimony Necessary?
Sometimes, sure, but not across the board.
Where it is most often justified:
- Long-term marriages
- Spouses who made significant career sacrifices for the other spouse
- Spouses who stayed home to raise children and thus stayed out of the workforce as a result
- Cases where the earning gap is directly caused by marital roles
- Situations where the lower-earning spouse may realistically become self-sufficient but needs transitional support
Where it probably isn’t:
- Two-income marriages with no serious career sacrifices attributable to being married
- Short-term marriages
- Marriages where the earning gap is not connected to marital choices
- No showing of financial dependence on one’s spouse due to no acts or omissions of your own
Why We Cannot Simply “Take What We Earned”
In a perfect world of perfectly equal spouses with perfectly equal careers and division of marital/family responsibilities, we might not need alimony.
But that is not most marriages.
People make sacrifices—for kids, for careers, for stability, for each other. And those sacrifices have long-term financial effects.
Alimony exists to deal with those effects. Not to reward anyone. Not to punish anyone.
Just to unwind the shared economic life two people built together.
Is the law perfect? No.
Is it outdated in some respects? Sexist in some respects too? Yes and yes.
Is it still necessary? Sometimes, clearly.
That is the honest answer.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277