We’ll start with this: The marital estate is generally valued at the time of the divorce decree or trial. Goggin v. Goggin, 2013 UT 16, ¶ 49, 299 P.3d 1079.
The “marital estate” means marital property, and “marital property” is property acquired during marriage and that is subject to distribution or division at the time of divorce. Generally, it is property acquired after the date of the marriage and before a spouse files for separation or divorce.
Where one spouse has dissipated a marital asset, the trial court may, in the exercise of its equitable powers, hold one party accountable to the other for the dissipation. Goggin v. Goggin, 2013 UT 16, ¶ 49, 299 P.3d 1079.
A court’s inquiry into a dissipation claim may consider “a number of factors,” but those factors are typically articulated as:
(1) how the money was spent, including whether funds were used to pay legitimate marital expenses or individual expenses;
(2) the parties’ historical practices;
(3) the magnitude of any depletion;
(4) the timing of the challenged actions in relation to the separation and divorce; and
(5) any obstructive efforts that hinder the valuation of the assets.
Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 2022 UT App 28, ¶ 69, 507 P.3d 385.
The burden of proof for dissipation initially falls on the party alleging it (Parker v. Parker, 2000 UT App 30, ¶ 15, 996 P.2d 565 (stating that a party seeking to assert dissipation must make an “initial showing of apparent dissipation”). The party alleging dissipation must first show evidence of dissipation. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15. Only then does the burden shift to the other party to show that the funds were not dissipated, but were used for some legitimate marital purpose. Id. ¶ 13.
While marital assets are generally valued as of the date of the divorce decree, “ ‘where one party has dissipated an asset, hidden its value or otherwise acted obstructively,’ the trial court may, in the exercise of its equitable powers, value a marital asset at some time other than the time the decree is entered,” such as at separation. Thomas v. Thomas, 987 P.2d 603, 609 (Utah Ct.App.1999) (quoting Andersen v. Andersen, 757 P.2d 476, 479 (Utah Ct.App.1988)). See Marshall v. Marshall, 915 P.2d 508, 516 n. 14 (Utah Ct.App.1996), so that the value of the asset can be set at a point before dissipation occurred.
Dissipation contemplates a diminution in the marital estate’s value due to a spouse’s actions. Although a spouse may not necessarily derive a personal benefit from the acts which constitute dissipation, expenditures that form the basis for dissipation should have some detrimental effect upon the marital estate. (Dissipation–Payment of Taxes on Marital Property, 20 No. 11 EQDJ 127 Equitable Distribution Journal)
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
