Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House passes alimony reform bill after debate over 'long‑term' language
Summary
The House un‑encircled, amended and passed House Bill 36 to set a clearer duration standard for alimony, adding judicial discretion for 'extenuating circumstances.' The measure passed 72–2 and moves to the Senate.
House Bill 36, a measure to revise how courts determine the duration of alimony, passed the Utah House of Representatives after floor amendments and brief debate.
The House un‑encircled the bill and adopted sponsor amendments intended to resolve an outstanding issue in paragraph 9 on page 4. Sponsor (identified on the floor as the bill proponent) said the amendment deleted the last sentence on line 26 and ‘‘inserted the term in a long term permanent relationship’’ to better define when post‑divorce payments should end. Members discussed whether that phrase needed a precise time definition and whether the measure left adequate protection for spouses nearing retirement.
Supporters said the bill balances predictability and judicial discretion. During questioning, a member raised the concern that the bill’s limit — tying alimony duration to the length of the marriage — could leave someone approaching retirement without income; the sponsor pointed to the bill’s ‘‘unless the court finds extenuating circumstances’’ clause (line 17) as the safety valve. Representative Cheryl Allen said the language purposely leaves interpretive authority with judges, noting courts currently rely on case law and that the bill ‘‘allows the court some interpretive powers on that so that they can…use case law.’'
Opponents asked whether the phrase ‘‘long term permanent relationship’’ could be given a numerical floor (one legislator suggested one year as an example). The sponsor said the task force that drafted the change intended predictable limits tied to marriage length while preserving exceptions for special circumstances.
Voting opened and closed on the floor; House Bill 36 received 72 yes votes and 2 no votes and was forwarded to the Senate for consideration.
The House recorded the procedural motions that un‑encircled the bill and placed sponsor amendments on the pink sheet dated Jan. 23. The next step is Senate consideration; no Senate action was recorded in this morning’s session.
The House recesses until 2 p.m.; HB36 will proceed to the Senate where deliberations on the court‑interpretation questions may reappear.
