Blog

Summary: Divorce after 50 leaves fewer working years to rebuild retirement savings, recover from tax mistakes, replace lost earning capacity, or undo a poor housing decision. The most important question is not simply how much property each spouse receives, but what those assets will actually provide after taxes, healthcare costs, housing expenses, and retirement—and whether the settlement actually separates two financial lives.

_________

Imagine a couple divorcing at 59 after thirty years of marriage. They own a home with substantial equity, have accumulated retirement and investment assets, and appear financially secure on paper.

Then one household becomes two.

One spouse needs health insurance. The home may need to be refinanced. Retirement assets may be taxable when withdrawn. A pension may provide less than expected if survivor benefits are not protected. One spouse may be only a few years from retirement, while the other has little time to increase earning capacity.

And even a mathematically equal settlement can leave former spouses financially tied together for years if the agreement does not explain who refinances, who buys whom out, when property must be sold, or what happens if the planned transaction fails.

That shorter recovery window is what makes later-life divorce less forgiving.

Equal Division Does Not Mean Equal Economic Effect

Utah marital property is ordinarily divided equally, and exceptional circumstances are required to overcome the presumption of equal division. Ball v. Ball, 2025 UT App 200, ¶ 16.

But equal division of value does not mean every asset has the same economic character.

Suppose the marital estate includes $500,000 in home equity and $500,000 in a traditional retirement account. Awarding one spouse the house and the other the retirement account produces two identical numbers on a spreadsheet.

It does not produce two identical financial positions.

Equity is the difference between an asset’s value and the debt secured against it. If a home is worth $800,000 and the mortgage balance is $300,000, the home has approximately $500,000 in gross equity.

The home provides a place to live, but it also carries property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, repairs, and perhaps refinancing costs. It may appreciate, but it is relatively illiquid, meaning it cannot easily be converted into spendable cash without selling or borrowing against it.

A traditional retirement account has a different character. Its assets are usually tax deferred, meaning income taxes are postponed until money is withdrawn. The account can provide retirement income and is more liquid than a house, but withdrawals can create income-tax consequences and may be subject to other withdrawal rules.

A Roth retirement account works differently. Contributions are made with money that has already been taxed, and qualifying future withdrawals can be tax free.

Cash is different from all three.

So is a taxable brokerage account, meaning an investment account that may contain stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investments that are not sheltered inside a tax-favored retirement plan.

Later in life, those differences matter more because there are fewer years available to recover from a poor allocation.

Equalization Can Hide Unequal Economics

The issue becomes especially important when one spouse receives a large indivisible asset and other property is used to balance the ledger.

Suppose one spouse wants the marital home. The parties determine the equity and charge that amount against the spouse receiving the residence. Retirement accounts, investment accounts, or cash are then allocated to the other spouse until the spreadsheet reaches 50/50.

This process is sometimes called equalization: using one asset or payment to balance the overall division of property.

That is a common method of dividing an estate.

But the fact that the columns balance does not answer whether the division is economically sound.

Before using one asset to offset another, the parties should ask:

• Is one asset taxable when spent while the other is not?
• Does either asset contain unrealized gain, meaning an increase in value that has not yet been taxed because the asset has not yet been sold?
• Is one asset liquid while the other is not?
• Will one produce income?
• Will one require substantial future expenditures?
• Are there restrictions on accessing the asset?
• Is the valuation reliable?
• Will the transfer require a specialized court order or create transaction costs?

The objective is not to make unlike assets identical. They are not.

The objective is to understand their differences before treating one dollar of one asset as though it necessarily has the same economic effect as one dollar of another.

Retirement Assets Require Precision

Employer retirement plans, pensions, individual retirement accounts, Roth accounts, and other retirement benefits are not interchangeable.

Many employer-sponsored retirement plans are divided through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, commonly called a QDRO. A QDRO is a specialized court order that directs a retirement plan to pay part of a participant’s benefits to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other qualifying person.

The legal framework comes from ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a federal law governing many employer-sponsored retirement and benefit plans.

ERISA recognizes QDROs as an exception to the general rule prohibiting assignment of retirement benefits. See ERISA § 206(d)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3).

The tax rules governing QDROs are found in the Internal Revenue Code, often abbreviated IRC. The Internal Revenue Code is the federal body of tax law enacted by Congress. See IRC § 414(p).

How a retirement transfer is structured can materially affect the tax consequences.

For example, a distribution to a spouse or former spouse as an alternate payee under a QDRO can qualify for an exception to the additional 10% tax that otherwise applies to certain early retirement-plan withdrawals. IRC § 72(t)(2)(C).

An alternate payee is the spouse, former spouse, child, or other qualifying person whom the QDRO designates to receive some portion of the retirement benefit.

IRAs Work Differently

An IRA, or Individual Retirement Account, is a tax-favored retirement account owned by an individual rather than an employer-sponsored retirement plan.

IRAs are not divided through QDROs.

Instead, IRC § 408(d)(6) permits an interest in an IRA to be transferred to a spouse or former spouse without current taxation when the transfer is properly made under a divorce or separation instrument.

That distinction matters.

If the transfer is structured correctly, the retirement asset can move from one spouse to the other without being treated as a taxable withdrawal.

Simply withdrawing money from an IRA and then writing a check to the former spouse can produce a very different tax result.

The distinction is not merely technical. A transaction worth hundreds of thousands of dollars can be structured correctly or incorrectly.

Pensions Require Separate Attention

A pension is a retirement benefit that promises future payments, often monthly payments for life, rather than simply providing an individual investment account balance.

Pensions require their own analysis.

The parties need to consider:

• the marital portion of the pension;
• when payments can begin;
• the form of payment;
• survivor benefits;
• cost-of-living adjustments;
• early-retirement subsidies; and
• what happens if the participant dies before or after retirement.

A survivor benefit is a continuing payment to another person, usually a spouse or former spouse, after the pension participant dies.

A cost-of-living adjustment, often called a COLA, increases benefits over time to account for inflation.

An agreement that merely says each spouse receives “half of the pension” can leave some of the most important questions unanswered.

Do Not Stop Looking at the 401(k)

A 401(k) is a common employer-sponsored retirement plan in which employees can contribute part of their wages to an investment account, often with tax advantages and sometimes with employer matching contributions.

But later-career compensation can extend well beyond a 401(k).

A spouse near the end of a career may have accumulated or earned interests in:

• deferred compensation;
• restricted stock or other equity awards;
• bonuses;
• stock options;
• supplemental executive retirement benefits;
• incentive compensation;
• pension rights; or
• other employment benefits payable in the future.

Deferred compensation is compensation earned now but paid later.

Restricted stock is company stock subject to conditions, such as continued employment or the passage of time, before the employee receives unrestricted ownership.

A stock option gives the employee the right to purchase company stock at a stated price under specified conditions.

The fact that compensation will be paid after the divorce does not establish that it was earned after the divorce.

The important questions are what the benefit is, when it was earned, when it vests, what conditions apply to payment, whether any portion is marital, and how it should be valued or divided.

A benefit vests when the employee obtains a legally enforceable right to keep or receive it, even though payment may occur later.

In a later-life divorce, overlooking compensation earned during the closing years of a career can materially distort the property division.

The House May Carry Future Tax and Cash-Flow Costs

A transfer of property between spouses, or between former spouses incident to divorce, receives special treatment under IRC § 1041.

The transfer ordinarily does not create immediate taxable gain or loss.

This is called nonrecognition treatment. It means the tax law does not treat the divorce transfer itself as a taxable sale.

But the transfer does something else that matters enormously:

It carries the property’s existing tax basis with it.

IRC § 1041(b).

What Is “Basis”?

“Basis” is one of the most important tax concepts in a divorce involving appreciated property.

The easiest way to understand it is this:

Basis is the tax law’s running measure of the owner’s investment in the property for purposes of calculating gain or loss when the property is sold.

It is the number the tax system uses when asking:

How much taxable gain did the owner actually realize from the sale?

Basis is not the same thing as:

• the home’s current market value;
• the amount of equity in the home;
• the remaining mortgage balance; or
• the amount of cash the owner receives at closing.

Those numbers answer different questions.

For a purchased home, basis usually begins with the original purchase price, together with certain qualifying acquisition costs.

The basis can then change over time.

Certain capital improvements increase basis. A capital improvement is a substantial expenditure that adds value to the property, prolongs its useful life, or adapts it to a new use. Examples can include an addition, major remodeling, or certain major replacements.

Routine repairs and maintenance do not automatically increase basis simply because the homeowner spent money on them.

Other events can reduce basis. Depreciation claimed when part of the property was used for business or rental purposes is an important example.

After those increases and decreases, the resulting number is called the adjusted basis.

How Basis Determines Gain

When a home is sold, the tax calculation begins with the amount the seller receives from the transaction after certain selling expenses.

That number is called the amount realized.

In simplified form:

Sale price
minus qualifying selling expenses
equals amount realized

Then:

Amount realized
minus adjusted basis
equals gain

Consider an example.

A couple buys a house for $200,000.

Over the years, they make $100,000 of qualifying capital improvements.

Assume those are the only relevant basis adjustments.

Their adjusted basis is now $300,000.

Years later, the house sells for $800,000. Assume qualifying selling expenses, such as real-estate commissions and other sale costs, total $50,000.

The amount realized is therefore:

$800,000 sale price
− $50,000 selling expenses
= $750,000 amount realized

The gain is then calculated against the $300,000 adjusted basis:

$750,000 amount realized
− $300,000 adjusted basis
= $450,000 gain

That $450,000 is the gain before determining how much can be excluded from taxation under the principal-residence rules and whether any other tax provisions apply.

Equity Is Not Basis

This distinction is critical.

Suppose that same $800,000 house has a $500,000 mortgage.

The owners might say they have approximately $300,000 in gross equity:

$800,000 value
− $500,000 mortgage
= $300,000 equity

But that does not mean the tax basis is $300,000.

And paying off the $500,000 mortgage at closing does not reduce the gain by $500,000.

The mortgage tells you how much debt is secured by the house.

Equity tells you how much of the home’s value remains after subtracting that debt.

Basis answers a completely different question: how much investment the tax law recognizes when calculating gain.

A homeowner can therefore have relatively little equity and still have substantial taxable gain.

A homeowner can also have substantial equity and relatively little taxable gain.

The two concepts should never be treated as interchangeable.

Refinancing Does Not Reset Basis

A refinance occurs when an existing mortgage is replaced with a new loan.

Refinancing a home does not ordinarily change its tax basis.

Suppose a couple purchased a house for $200,000, later refinanced when the property was worth $600,000, and borrowed $400,000 against it.

That does not turn the basis into $400,000 or $600,000.

Borrowing money against the house is not the same thing as making an additional investment in the property.

The basis still depends on the acquisition cost and legitimate basis adjustments, such as qualifying capital improvements.

Why Basis Matters in Divorce

Suppose a marital home is worth $800,000 and has an adjusted basis of $300,000.

As part of the divorce, one spouse transfers his or her interest in the home to the other spouse.

The spouse who ends up with the house does not receive a new $800,000 basis simply because the property was worth $800,000 when the divorce occurred.

The existing $300,000 basis carries over under IRC § 1041.

That means the house can arrive with substantial appreciation already built into it.

A later sale is measured against the carried-over basis, not against the home’s value on the date of divorce.

In practical terms, the spouse receiving the home receives both:

the property and its tax history.

The Home-Sale Exclusion Can Reduce or Eliminate the Tax

Not all calculated gain is necessarily taxable.

IRC § 121 provides a principal-residence exclusion, meaning qualifying homeowners can exclude some gain from federal income taxation when they sell their main home.

The exclusion can reach up to $250,000 for an individual and up to $500,000 for qualifying married taxpayers filing jointly.

The law includes ownership and use requirements and special rules for separated and divorced spouses.

Return to the earlier example.

If the calculated gain is $450,000 and the homeowner qualifies for a $250,000 exclusion, the exclusion can shelter the first $250,000 of qualifying gain.

The remaining gain must then be analyzed under the applicable tax rules.

The important point for divorce planning is not that keeping an appreciated house necessarily produces a large tax bill.

It is that the house has a basis, the basis survives the divorce transfer, and the basis affects the tax consequences when the property is eventually sold.

An $800,000 house with a $300,000 basis is therefore not necessarily the economic equivalent of $800,000 in cash.

That does not make the house a bad asset.

It means the settlement analysis should account for the house’s tax history instead of looking only at its current market value or equity.

The House Must Also Work as a Cash-Flow Asset

Cash flow means the money coming into and going out of a household over time.

Taxes are only part of the housing analysis.

Someone can leave a marriage with substantial net worth—the value of everything the person owns minus what the person owes—and still become financially strained because too much of that wealth is concentrated in a residence requiring property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, repairs, and perhaps a new mortgage.

The question is not simply:

“Can I get the house?”

It is:

“Can I afford to keep the house without consuming the assets I need for retirement?”

That question becomes more important at 60 than at 35 because there is less time to rebuild savings after an expensive mistake.

A Divorce Settlement Should End Unnecessary Financial Entanglement

Some of the most troublesome divorce provisions involve property that cannot simply be handed to one spouse on the day the decree is entered.

A residence may need to be refinanced. Investment property may need to be sold. Real estate may be owned not only by the spouses but also with an adult child, business partner, or other family member. A business may require valuation before a buyout can occur.

A buyout occurs when one owner pays another owner for that owner’s share of an asset.

In those situations, merely assigning percentages postpones the problem.

A sound settlement should establish an exit mechanism.

If one spouse will buy out the other’s interest in jointly owned real estate, the agreement should address:

• how the property will be valued;
• who selects and pays the appraiser;
• how disagreements over value will be resolved;
• the amount or formula for the buyout;
• the deadline for payment;
• whether refinancing is required;
• how the departing spouse will be released from debt;
• who pays taxes, insurance, maintenance, and other carrying costs until the transaction is complete; and
• whether the property must be sold if the buyout does not occur by the deadline.

Carrying costs are the ongoing expenses required to own and maintain an asset while it is being held, such as taxes, insurance, mortgage payments, utilities, and maintenance.

Those provisions can be as important as the percentage division itself.

A former spouse who still owns property with an ex-spouse, remains liable on a mortgage, or repeatedly needs an ex-spouse’s cooperation has not been fully financially disentangled.

Healthcare Can Be a Major Pre-Medicare Expense

For spouses divorcing between 50 and 65, health insurance can materially change the post-divorce budget.

Medicare is the federal health-insurance program primarily available to people age 65 and older, as well as certain younger people with qualifying disabilities.

A spouse divorcing before Medicare eligibility may therefore need to replace employer-sponsored coverage.

One possible option is COBRA, short for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.

COBRA is a federal law that allows certain employees, spouses, and dependents to continue participating temporarily in an employer-sponsored health plan after an event that would otherwise cause them to lose coverage.

Divorce or legal separation can qualify a former spouse for continued coverage for up to 36 months under a covered plan.

But COBRA can be expensive because the former spouse can be required to pay the full premium plus an administrative charge, up to 102% of the plan’s cost.

COBRA also contains strict notice and election deadlines.

For smaller employers, Utah law provides a separate continuation right. Utah Code § 31A-22-722 provides up to 12 months of extended coverage under qualifying employer group policies following specified events, including divorce or legal separation.

Another possibility is coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace, the system created under federal law through which individuals can purchase private health-insurance plans.

Loss of qualifying health coverage can create a Special Enrollment Period, meaning the person can enroll outside the ordinary annual enrollment period.

For someone several years short of Medicare eligibility, the cost of replacing health insurance can materially change the amount of income required after divorce.

There Is Less Time to Rebuild Income

A spouse who spent decades outside the workforce, worked part time, or accepted a lower-paying career path for the benefit of the family may not be able to recreate decades of lost earning capacity in the final years before retirement.

Earning capacity means the amount a person is reasonably capable of earning based on factors such as education, experience, employment history, skills, age, and available work.

The higher earner faces a different version of the problem. Retirement may soon reduce the income that previously supported one household and is now expected to help support two.

Utah law expressly recognizes this situation.

Utah Code § 81-4-502(6)(a) provides that when a long-duration marriage dissolves on the threshold of a major change in one spouse’s income resulting from the parties’ collective efforts, the court must consider that change in dividing marital property and determining alimony.

Alimony, sometimes called spousal support, is a payment from one former spouse to the other intended to address post-divorce financial circumstances under the standards established by Utah law.

Subsection (6)(b) permits a compensating adjustment when one spouse’s earning capacity was greatly enhanced through the efforts of both parties during the marriage.

Those provisions deserve particular attention when divorce occurs close to retirement.

Property Division and Alimony Should Not Be Viewed in Isolation

Property division and alimony are legally distinct issues, but their financial effects overlap.

A spouse’s post-divorce financial circumstances can depend not only on wages, but also on:

• pension income;
• retirement distributions;
• investment income;
• liquid assets;
• housing costs;
• Social Security;
• employment prospects; and
• the property received in the divorce.

That does not mean a spouse who receives substantial marital property automatically has no valid claim for alimony.

Nor does it mean marital property should simply be spent down instead of support being awarded.

It means the financial picture should be evaluated as a whole.

If one spouse claims an inability to meet reasonable needs, the analysis should not stop at wages. Likewise, the other spouse’s ability to pay should be evaluated under the financial circumstances that will actually exist after the property division.

Retirement deserves special attention.

Utah Code § 81-4-504(2) provides that, for decrees within the statute’s scope, retirement constitutes a substantial material change in circumstances supporting a petition to modify alimony unless the decree or findings expressly provide otherwise.

A substantial material change in circumstances is a significant change in financial or other relevant circumstances that can justify asking the court to modify an existing order.

That creates an obvious settlement question for couples already approaching retirement:

What is expected to happen to support when retirement occurs?

If retirement is foreseeable at the time of divorce, ignoring the question can simply defer the dispute.

Federal Alimony Tax Treatment Has Changed

For many years, federal tax law allowed the person paying qualifying alimony to deduct the payments while requiring the recipient to report the payments as taxable income.

That rule changed.

For divorce or separation instruments executed after December 31, 2018, alimony is not deductible by the payer and is not taxable income to the recipient under the current federal tax system.

Different rules continue to apply to some older divorce instruments and certain later modifications of them.

That means a $5,000 monthly alimony obligation no longer has the same federal after-tax economics that an identical obligation had under the former system.

Settlement negotiations should focus on actual after-tax cash flow rather than assumptions based on the old tax treatment.

Social Security Belongs in the Retirement Analysis

Social Security is the federal retirement, disability, and survivor-benefit program funded primarily through payroll taxes.

Social Security is not another marital account that a divorce court simply divides between spouses.

But it can be an important part of each spouse’s future income.

A divorced spouse who was married to the former spouse for at least ten years can qualify for benefits based on the former spouse’s earnings record if the remaining federal eligibility requirements are satisfied.

An earnings record is the history of wages or self-employment income on which a worker paid Social Security taxes. Social Security uses that history to calculate benefits.

The ten-year marriage requirement can therefore matter when divorce occurs close to that threshold.

Eligibility does not mean the divorced spouse simply receives half of the former spouse’s Social Security check.

Benefit eligibility and amounts depend on federal Social Security rules, including age, the claimant’s own earnings record, marital status, and other factors.

The larger point is that Social Security should be considered alongside pensions, retirement accounts, housing costs, healthcare, and alimony when estimating what each spouse’s retirement income will actually look like.

The Settlement Needs an Implementation Plan

A divorce settlement is not complete merely because everyone agrees who receives each asset.

Someone still has to make the division happen.

That is where otherwise good settlements fail.

If the agreement says one spouse will “refinance the residence,” what happens if the lender refuses?

If one spouse receives half of a retirement plan, who prepares the QDRO?

Who pays the QDRO preparation fee?

When must it be submitted?

If investment accounts fluctuate after settlement, what valuation date applies?

A valuation date is the date on which an asset’s value is measured for purposes of the property division.

If one spouse is buying out the other’s interest in property, when is payment due?

When must the deed be signed?

What happens if payment is not made?

If property must be sold, who selects the real-estate agent? Who sets the listing price? Who pays repairs and carrying costs while the property is on the market? What happens if the parties disagree about an offer?

The agreement should answer foreseeable implementation questions before they become post-divorce disputes.

A well-drafted settlement therefore deals with more than who gets what.

It addresses how, when, and under what conditions the division will occur—and what happens if the planned transaction fails.

Run the Settlement Forward

A later-life property division should be tested against future cash flow, not simply current asset values.

Imagine the settlement at age 60.

Then age 65.

Then age 70.

Ask:

What income will actually be available?

Which assets will have to be sold or withdrawn to produce it?

Which withdrawals will be taxable?

What happens when earned income ends?

What will health insurance cost before Medicare?

What happens to alimony upon retirement?

What Social Security benefits could be available?

Can the spouse keeping the home afford taxes, insurance, maintenance, and major repairs without steadily draining retirement savings?

Does either spouse hold appreciated property with substantial built-in gain?

Are the parties still jointly liable on debt or jointly invested in property years after the divorce?

Those questions expose problems that a simple 50/50 spreadsheet cannot.

Questions Worth Asking Before You Settle

Before signing a later-life divorce agreement, ask:

• What is the after-tax economic character of the assets I am receiving?
• Are we treating economically different assets as interchangeable simply because their current values are equal?
• Which retirement assets require a QDRO, IRA transfer, or another specialized procedure?
• Have we identified pensions, deferred compensation, bonuses, stock awards, and other benefits earned during the marriage but payable later?
• What is the adjusted tax basis of the marital home and other appreciated property?
• How does that basis compare with current value?
• What gain could exist if I later sell the property?
• Can I actually afford the home after taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, and financing?
• How will I obtain health insurance immediately after divorce, and what deadlines apply?
• What Social Security benefits could eventually be available?
• How will retirement affect alimony?
• Are pension survivor benefits, life insurance, and beneficiary designations coordinated with the settlement?
• Will the settlement leave us jointly owning property or jointly liable for debt?
• If a buyout is contemplated, what happens if it cannot be completed?
• Does the agreement identify valuation dates and transfer deadlines?
• Does it specify who prepares the documents needed to divide retirement accounts and transfer title?
• If property must be sold, does the agreement explain how the sale will occur?
• What does each spouse’s budget look like after earned income stops?

The Goal Is Not Just 50/50

Later-life divorce magnifies financial mistakes because time—the resource that often cures investment losses, career interruptions, housing mistakes, and insufficient retirement savings—is running shorter.

That does not mean every spouse over 50 should sell the house, avoid retirement assets, or insist on cash.

It means the settlement should be evaluated by what the assets will do, not merely by what they are worth today.

A sound agreement should account for taxes, liquidity, income, retirement, healthcare, housing costs, future compensation, and Social Security.

It should eliminate unnecessary continuing financial ties and provide clear instructions for completing every significant transfer, refinance, buyout, and sale.

The purpose of property division is not merely to make two columns on a spreadsheet equal.

It is to divide one financial life into two workable ones.

A later-life divorce settlement does not need to predict the future perfectly.

It does need to survive contact with it.

The biggest improvement, in my view, is that the reader no longer has to know what IRC, ERISA, QDRO, IRA, COBRA, COLA, basis, adjusted basis, amount realized, deferred compensation, vesting, liquidity, or carrying costs mean before the article becomes useful. The definitions are integrated where the concepts matter instead of forcing the reader into a glossary.

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