How Utah calculates alimony
Utah alimony law got a new address in 2024. The 2024 Domestic Relations Recodification, SB 95 for the renumbering and HB 220 for the substantive change described below, moved spousal support out of Title 30, where it had lived at §30-3-5, into Title 81, Chapter 4, Part 5, as §81-4-502. That took effect September 1, 2024. If a calculator, article, or old bookmark still cites §30-3-5, it's pointing at a superseded citation. This page cites §81-4-502 throughout.
Like Connecticut, California, and several other states in this project, Utah has no formula for the dollar amount of alimony. Instead, §81-4-502(1) lists 8 factors a court considers: the standard of living established during the marriage, including income and the approximate value of real and personal property; the financial condition and needs of the payee, with a notable feature that the payee may itemize expenses from during the marriage rather than being limited to post-petition expenses; the payee's earning capacity or ability to produce income, expressly including the impact of diminished workplace experience from primarily caring for a minor child of the payor; the payor's ability to provide support; the length of the marriage; whether the payee has custody of a minor child requiring support; whether the payee worked in a business owned or operated by the payor; and whether the payee directly contributed to the payor's education, financially or by enabling the payor to attend school during the marriage.
Fault gets a real, if limited, role. Section 81-4-502(2)(a) lets the court consider fault in deciding whether to award alimony at all and on what terms. What's genuinely unusual, and not confirmed in any other state statute reviewed for this project, is §81-4-502(2)(b): when fault is at issue, the court may close the proceedings and seal the court records. That's a specific procedural tool tied directly to fault, not just a factor buried in a list.
The most consequential 2024 change is the standard-of-living equalization presumption in §81-4-502(4), added by HB 220. If a marriage lasted 10 years or more, and the payee has significantly diminished workplace experience because the spouses agreed the payee would reduce that experience to care for a minor child of the payor, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that the court will equalize the parties' standards of living. A payor can rebut it with a showing of good cause, and the court has to enter specific findings explaining its decision either way. The presumption is explicitly not retroactive: it cannot be applied to modify an alimony award if the divorce petition was filed before May 1, 2024. Our calculator flags this presumption only when all three conditions line up, a 10-plus-year marriage, a qualifying childcare-driven employment gap, and a petition filed on or after that date.
Duration is where Utah's law is genuinely a hard rule rather than a guideline. Section 81-4-502(7) says a court may not order alimony for longer than the length of the marriage, with one exception: at any point before alimony terminates, the court can find extenuating circumstances or good cause justifying a longer term. Temporary alimony paid while the divorce is pending counts toward that cap, so a payor who's already been paying pendente lite support isn't getting extra time added on top. A handful of other rules round out the picture: the standard of living is measured as of the time of separation by default, though a court can use the time of trial instead; short marriages with no minor child born or conceived during the marriage let a court look at the pre-marriage standard of living and even try to restore both parties to where they started; and in a long marriage where one spouse's income is about to jump because of the couple's joint efforts, the court can make a compensating adjustment in property or alimony to account for that.
Last reviewed: July 2026. Statute citation: Utah Code §81-4-502 (current, effective September 1, 2024); formerly Utah Code §30-3-5, superseded and not current law. Recodification and reform: SB 95 (renumbering) and HB 220 (equalization presumption, §81-4-502(4)), both effective September 1, 2024.
Primary source: read the official Utah statute text →
Frequently Asked Questions
Where is Utah's alimony statute now?
Utah Code §81-4-502, effective September 1, 2024. The 2024 Domestic Relations Recodification (SB 95) moved alimony law out of the old Title 30, §30-3-5 citation into Title 81, Chapter 4. Any source still citing §30-3-5 is referencing the superseded citation, not current law.
Is there a duration cap on Utah alimony?
Yes. Under §81-4-502(7), a court may not order alimony for longer than the length of the marriage, except upon a finding of extenuating circumstances or good cause made before alimony terminates. Temporary, pendente-lite payments made during the divorce count toward this cap.
Does fault matter for Utah alimony?
It can. Section 81-4-502(2)(a) lets the court consider fault in deciding whether to award alimony and its terms. Utah also has an unusual companion tool: §81-4-502(2)(b) lets the court close the proceedings and seal the court records specifically when fault is at issue.
What is Utah's 2024 alimony equalization presumption?
Under §81-4-502(4), enacted by HB 220, if a marriage lasted 10 or more years and the payee has significantly diminished workplace experience because the spouses agreed the payee would reduce workplace experience to care for a minor child of the payor, there is a rebuttable presumption the court will equalize the parties' standards of living. It can be rebutted by a showing of good cause, and it does not apply to divorce petitions filed before May 1, 2024.
What factors does a Utah court weigh under §81-4-502?
Eight factors: the standard of living during the marriage; the payee's financial condition and needs; the payee's earning capacity, including any diminished workplace experience from childcare; the payor's ability to pay; the length of the marriage; whether the payee has custody of a minor child requiring support; whether the payee worked in the payor's business; and whether the payee funded the payor's education.