Rule v. Rule, 2017 UT App 137 (August 3, 2017)

The court of appeals held that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to make its alimony determination by assessing the wife’s needs and calculating her actual expenses at the time of trial, rather than the standard of living established during the marriage.  The district court’s conclusion that the parties’ combined resources were insufficient to sustain the marital standard was not a sufficient justification to bypass the traditional needs analysis which requires consideration of the marital standard.