Appeals court hears dispute over using brokerage‑account earnings as income for alimony and child support

At oral argument in Dutcher v. Dutcher, the Utah Court of Appeals extensively questioned whether returns from a divided brokerage account should be treated as income when calculating alimony and child support. The dispute centers on how the trial court characterized the account and on competing evidence about what monthly return, if any, the account would generate.

Harry Kasten, counsel for the appellee Audrey Dutcher, emphasized the court’s finding that the parties historically treated the brokerage account as “savings” and quoted the trial court’s written finding that “it would be inequitable to treat any earnings from the account as income.” Kasten argued the returns are not guaranteed and called using a high representative rate “speculation,” warning that if courts tie alimony to projected returns that later evaporate, parties will be forced into repeated modification proceedings.

Taylor Webb, counsel for appellant David Dutcher, urged the panel to treat the account as an income‑generating asset for alimony purposes. Webb highlighted exhibit evidence summarizing the account’s growth and told the court that the account’s size and history made it inappropriate to ignore projected returns. Webb said the parties’ differing post‑division abilities to invest are already reflected in the property split and in line items the court assigned for savings and retirement; therefore, she argued, the court should count the account’s likely yield in its alimony calculation.

The lawyers framed numbers during argument. Counsel and the panel discussed the approximate division the trial court made: Webb said the court awarded roughly $560,000 to Audrey and roughly $1.3 million to David. Counsel referenced testimony from a financial expert (Townsend/Townshend) that produced an estimated representative return used in the court’s calculations; appellee counsel stressed the expert refused to guarantee future returns on cross‑examination.

Panel members pressed both sides on practical effects: whether treating the account as income would require frequent modification petitions if market returns fall, and whether imputation doctrine supports counting expected returns when a party chooses to withdraw funds. One panelist noted common practice in support and alimony calculations of averaging variable income over a period; another cautioned that using a projected rate is not the same as a guarantee.

The trial court’s written findings — including its statement that the parties historically used the account as a savings vehicle and that it would be inequitable to treat earnings as income — were central to argument. Neither side sought immediate relief from the appellate panel at argument; the court took the matter under advisement for a written decision.

No final appellate ruling was announced from the bench; the panel said it would issue a written opinion.

This question may affect month‑to‑month support obligations and whether courts may rely on projected returns from invested principal when determining need and payments for alimony and child support.