When a spouse earns less after divorce is filed, the court does not have to accept the lower number just because it appears on a paycheck.
That is one of the practical lessons of Jenkins v. Jenkins, a 2026 Utah Court of Appeals decision about imputed income, voluntary underemployment, fault, and alimony.
Divorce courts are not calculators with robes. They look at numbers, of course. But they also look at timing, credibility, work history, explanations, and whether someone appears to be playing games.
A Lower Paycheck Does Not Make Alimony Reduction a Foregone Conclusion
In Jenkins, the husband had worked for years as an automobile mechanic. Before the divorce was filed, his annual income was roughly $142,000 to $150,000. After the divorce was filed, his income dropped to roughly $96,000 to $101,000. That is the kind of substantial decrease a court notices.
The husband said the reduction was not voluntary. He testified that his employer had changed ownership and that the new business model reduced his compensation. The trial court did not reject that explanation completely. The court accepted that some of the income drop was tied to circumstances outside his control. But “some” is not “all.”
The wife testified that the husband had threatened to work less so she would not receive alimony. The court believed her. That mattered. A lower paycheck is evidence, but it is not magic. If a spouse says, in substance, “I’ll make sure you don’t get my money,” and then his income conveniently drops after the divorce is filed, the court does not have to pretend the timing is meaningless. Spite-driven financial choices have a way of becoming expensive evidence.
In Jenkins the Court Chose the Middle Ground
The trial court looked at the husband’s long work history, his seniority, his pre-divorce income, his post-divorce income, and his actual pay data. It concluded that the truth was somewhere in the middle. Some of the income reduction may have been legitimate. But the court found that not all of it was. So the court imputed income to him.
That is the useful point. Voluntary underemployment does not require proof that every lost dollar was intentionally withheld. A court can find that a spouse is capable of earning more than he or she currently earns, even if there are some legitimate reasons for part of the income decline.
The court did not simply use the husband’s lower current income. It also did not adopt the wife’s highest requested number. It chose a middle-ground figure based on the evidence.
That is how real cases often work. Not every issue is all-or-nothing. Sometimes the court says, in effect, “I believe part of what you are saying, but not enough to let you off the hook.”
For divorcing spouses, the lesson is blunt: do not assume that a lower post-filing paycheck will automatically become the number used for alimony or child support. If the timing is suspicious, if the explanation is weak, or if there is evidence of intentional reduction, the court may use a higher income figure.
Fault Is Not Revenge, But Jenkins Illustrates How Fault Can Matter
The second major lesson from Jenkins concerns fault and alimony.
Utah law allows courts to consider fault when deciding whether to award alimony and what the terms of alimony should be. That does not mean every bad act in a marriage becomes financially relevant. The conduct must meet the legal standard, and it must matter to the equitable analysis.
In Jenkins, the trial court found that the husband’s conduct substantially contributed to the breakup of the marriage. The court made findings involving infidelity, marital funds spent in connection with an extramarital relationship, financial control, and serious sexual misconduct. This was not merely a “he cheated” case. The court looked at the seriousness of the conduct and the harm it caused.
Based on those findings, the court reduced some of the husband’s claimed monthly expenses when calculating alimony.
That may sound like punishment. The court said it was not punishment. The point was not to make the husband pay for being a bad spouse. The point was to avoid an unfair result.
That distinction matters.
Alimony is not supposed to be revenge with a spreadsheet. But neither is it blind to fault, credibility, financial manipulation, or the real-world damage caused by marital misconduct. Fault is not a punishment lever. But it can be an equity lever.
Who Tightens the Belt?
The court also did not simply accept the wife’s claimed expenses wholesale. It reduced some of her proposed expenses too. That is important. The court was not just picking a favorite and dressing it up as fairness. It reviewed both parties’ budgets, adjusted both where appropriate, considered income, need, ability to pay, fault, and then allocated the shortfall.
And that leads to one of the hardest questions in many alimony cases: who tightens the belt?
In many divorces, there is not enough money to maintain two households at the marital standard of living. The math is unforgiving. Two homes cost more than one. When there is not enough income to go around, someone’s budget has to give.
Jenkins shows that fault can affect how that financial pain is allocated. Not because the court gets to punish the spouse at fault, but because fairness may require the spouse who caused serious harm to bear more of the belt-tightening.
The Practical Lesson of Jenkins
The broader lesson is simple: numbers in divorce are not self-proving.
A financial declaration is not holy writ. A paycheck is not always the whole story. A claimed expense is not automatically reasonable just because someone typed it into a form.
Courts can ask harder questions.
Why did the income drop after the divorce was filed? Is the explanation credible? What did this person earn before? What is he or she capable of earning now? Are the claimed expenses consistent with the marital standard of living? Would accepting one party’s numbers create an unfair result? Did fault contribute to the harm the court is being asked to address?
Jenkins does not mean every spouse who earns less after divorce will be imputed income. It does not mean fault will always increase alimony. And it does not mean courts have unlimited freedom to rewrite budgets however they please.
It means something more practical: Utah divorce courts are allowed to look past the surface when the evidence justifies it.
Divorce does not make underemployment invisible. It does not make suspicious timing irrelevant. It does not make fault meaningless. And it does not require a court to accept financial claims that would produce an inequitable result.
In family law, equity still matters.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277