Naylor v. Naylor
Supreme Court of Utah
700 P.2d 707 (1985)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Robert Naylor (plaintiff) filed a petition for divorce from his wife, Julia Naylor (defendant). At the time of the filing, Robert had recently become a practicing surgeon, and Julia was employed as a hairdresser. The trial court found that Robert earned about $2,600 per month, while Julia earned about $702 per month. The trial court awarded alimony of $500 per month to Julia for five years and child support of $250 per month until their child reached the age of majority or left home. Several years later, Julia filed an action to modify the divorce decree to extend the period for the payment of temporary alimony. At a hearing on the petition, the court noted that Robert had become a shareholder in a medical-practice corporation and was earning an annual net income of approximately $75,000, while Julia’s income had not changed. The court also found that the living expenses of Julia and their child, who had since become a teenager, had increased from $1,450 per month to over $2,100 per month at the time of the modification hearing. The court held that, due to this change in circumstances and Robert’s ability to pay an increased and extended alimony award, Julia’s alimony should be extended for an additional four years and increased to $600 per month. Additionally, the court increased the child support to be paid by Robert from $250 per month to $400 per month. Finally, the court required Robert to pay Julia’s attorneys’ fees. Robert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Durham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.