Utah Court of Appeals hears arguments on enforceability of post‑marital alimony provision in Taylor v. Taylor

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Taylor v. Taylor over whether a post‑marital agreement’s alimony provision is enforceable. Caroline Olsen, counsel for Jackie Taylor, urged the court to reverse the district court’s ruling that the provision was unenforceable and to treat gaps in the agreement as matters of interpretation the court (or a remand) can fill. Kevin Kahl, counsel for Mark Taylor, told the panel the agreement fails for indefiniteness and that essential terms for a payment obligation — how much, how measured and how paid — are missing.

Olsen argued the agreement contains the essential commitments: revocation of the prenuptial waiver of alimony and an agreement that Jackie would receive alimony calculated as a percentage of Mark’s income. "Contracts should be construed to avoid forfeiture," she said, urging the court to apply principles from Texas contract law (which the contract invokes) and Texas cases that permit courts to…