S.B. 59 Alimony Amendments

What this bill does

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 5 yes, 0 no, 4 absentSenate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee: vote to approve it · Jan 27, 2026Who voted how
• 24 yes, 1 no, 4 absentFirst of two Senate votes · Feb 13, 2026Who voted how
• 22 yes, 2 no, 5 absentFinal Senate vote · Feb 17, 2026Who voted how
• 6 yes, 3 no, 2 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 23, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 4 no, 2 absentHouse Judiciary Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 23, 2026Who voted how
• 55 yes, 0 no, 20 absentFinal House vote · Feb 26, 2026
• 24 yes, 1 no, 4 absentSenate vote to accept the other chamber's changes · Feb 27, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Jan 27, 2026 Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (23 turns)

  1. Committee chair43:46

     Um, our first item on the agenda is Senate bill 59 Alimony Amendments. Uh, Senator Fillmore, oh, let me turn on your microphone. That might help.

  2. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore43:58

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate you, uh, uh, genderizing this bill so that we could hear it. Uh, there's good news about this bill is that this is actually two bills, but being so conscious of the number of bills we run, I was able to take two constituent requests and put them into a single bill. So one of my constituents who called me, uh, you know, to talk about this problem is an attorney who is dealing with a case. So that deals with, uh, policy change number one in this bill, which is clarifying what, um, the timing of cohabiting during the period of a contested divorce and how that relates, uh, to payments. Right. So currently our, the statute is silent on whether cohabitation bars a claim to creating an alimony award. It only says cohabitation can terminate a preexisting alimony award. And in this circumstance, my constituent was representing one party of a divorce. The other party was cohabitating, uh, uh, you know, with a sexual partner, uh, during, during that dispute. Uh, you know, and by the time you file and by the time everything can get settled, there's a time spend there. So, um, uh, the other partner was cohabitating for 12 months of that 16 month period, but then, you know, kind of stopped cohabitating, uh, for, uh, a few months after that. Uh, uh, you guys have a handout that kind of goes over this in detail. Even the judge talked about how in this case, the judge thought that looked and smelled suspicious. Um, but that the, the statute only, uh, ends a previous award for alimony. Uh, uh, so this just puts clarity that says, uh, cohabitating can also impact the creation of an award for alimony. And in that way, remove the incentive to game the system by. Okay, well, we love you Now I'm gonna move in, move in with you, but maybe we'll stop cohabitating a couple of weeks before the divorce thing, so then we're not cohabitating and I can still get alimony. So that's policy change Number one, policy change number two has to do with alimony awards. Um, when the, uh, tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in 2017, it changed the tax treatment of alimony. Many states have taken the step of recognizing that in their state code. So this would just do the same here. Uh, and just what it, it, it directs judges that when they're awarding alimony to consider the full picture of what that costs, including, uh, who's liable for taxes. That's the bill.

  3. Unknown committee member46:27speaker not certain

     Thank you. So I, um, have a few questions. I'm sorry. Oh, Is Spencer Ricks online? I Okay. Okay. Thanks. Sorry. Okay. Let me know if he pops up since I work in this space.

  4. Unknown committee member46:37speaker not certain

     Um, lines 1 0 2 through 1 0 4 says A payer may not seek the termination of alimony later than one year after the day in which the payer knew or should have known that the pay you pay you has cohabitated with another individual. I guess my question about that is, I don't think there's a judge in the state If, um, for instance, if an ex-wife, I'm gonna use a female gender, if an ex-wife remarried and then filed for divorce two months later, um, they couldn't get their alimony back. Even if they had done that, they, they may have gone to Vegas in secret. Mm-hmm. Gotten married. It didn't work out. They get divorced. Um, and so I'm just wondering why if a marriage, even if it's a short term, would terminate alimony, why, uh, a cohabitation, um, wouldn't, I Think it would, this just puts a clock on it so that the peor can't say, well, you know, they got married, uh, a year and a half ago, but now I'm going in to contest the award. This just puts a clock on the peor I see. To say, uh, you have a year to seek this. But then, so, uh, assuming again, in my hypothetical, if it's a woman who co cohabitated and is the recipient of alimony, now she's gonna have to prove that her ex-husband knew or should have known that she was cohabitating,

  5. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore47:51

     correct? Yes. In order, yes.

  6. Unknown committee member47:52speaker not certain

     Okay. That's the way that's phrased. All right. Well, that, um, okay. Second of all, um, I don't know if you are aware of this. I was not aware of this. Um, nobody taught me this in law school, but when we calculate child support, we make, uh, an effort to look at the, um, take home pay. Um, uh, it's, we, we use a different standard for calculating child support than we do for alimony. Um, and, um, and I think that's been intentional. So I just want you to know, um, you are right. The, um, alimony is no longer tax deductible based on the tax cuts under Trump won. Um, uh, but I do think that the formulas for alimony and child support have been intentionally different. And, and you may be changing that, and I'm not sure exactly what, um, uh, what unintended consequences that may have.

  7. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore48:51

     I don't think this bill is changing that, because all it does is to say, judge, when you're awarding alimony, we don't make any changes to formula. We just say recognize that the person paying the alimony is also paying the taxes on the alimony. Yeah. And that therefore ought to impact, you know, whatever the, just take that into account Okay. To make sure that the, you're recognizing who is paying the taxes and who's receiving the alimony. That's

  8. Unknown committee member49:13speaker not certain

     All. And, and just, just so I can finish my thought, um, we also s calculate Ali, I'm sorry, child support off of one 40 hour a week job, even if the person has a second job, usually the courts will only use one pursuant to our statute, but alimo is usually, they calculate all income from any source. And so I just wanted everyone to know those are calculated differently, but does that conclude your presentation then?

  9. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore49:38

     Yes. Alright. Are there any other

  10. Committee chair49:40

      questions from the committee, um, on these changes?

  11. Unknown committee member49:44speaker not certain

      Um, have you, have you, um, not that you're required to, but have you reached out to any stakeholders other than, um, the one individual you named to seek kind of feedback on this?

  12. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore49:56speaker not certain

      No. Okay. Well, it might, it might be interesting what,

  13. Unknown committee member49:59speaker not certain

      what comes forward in the next couple weeks.

  14. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore50:01

      Yeah. It might be, Um, I will tell you that, um, because I've tweaked some of these statutes before and I've been the brunt of the criticism, um, what the criticism may be is, uh, every time we change the statute for alimony or something like that, we've gotta wait three years to see what the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court does. And so it kind of throws some uncertainty mm-hmm. And ambiguity into a settlement. And then it makes cases harder to settle, which attorneys don't like, we like certainty and at least predictability.

  15. Unknown committee member50:31speaker not certain

      So, and I appreciate that feedback. Yeah.

  16. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore50:32speaker not certain

      'cause I, you know, I don't play in this space a lot. Yeah. I just happen to be the, uh, the have two constituents with the bad luck to have me as their senator, so Sure. When they reach out. Sure. But actually I take it back 'cause I did talk to you about this.

  17. Unknown committee member50:44speaker not certain

      Yes. So, well, we don't count me, but, okay.

  18. Committee chair50:47

      Um, by a show of hands, either online or in person, are there, uh, individuals who would like to be heard on this bill, Senate bill 59 alimony amendments?

  19. Committee chair51:01

      Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the committee for further action.

  20. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore51:05

      Thank you. So I've got, that doesn't surprise me. I, I consider these to be two fairly technical kind of cleanup changes. We just, uh, you know, experience has taught us that our existing law didn't cover this specific circumstance and it, it probably ought to. So, uh, we put that in to try to keep that just in the spirit of what everything else has done regarding cohabitation. And then just since the tax laws changed in 2017, that's had an impact. You know, I have a constituent for whom that has an impact on a go forward basis. It just makes sense that we ought to take into account the tax implications of alimony.

  21. Committee chair51:38

      Thank you. Alright. Would you like to make a motion?

  22. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore51:41

      Oh, sure. Uh, I move that those, uh, that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 59.

  23. Committee chair51:47

      Alright. Discussion to that motion. See none. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Cheryl of that passes unanimously, which is five to zero. Thank you, Senator. Um, our next item on the agenda is

• Feb 13, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore46:29

     when the award is given, then no alimony is awarded. But my constituent is an attorney who, uh, was representing a person who faced a, a case that lasted more than a year. And for a, um, you know, for the, the first 12 months or so of that time, the other party was cohabitating and then stopped cohabitating just when the alimony award was was coming. This clarifies that cohabitation during that process counts as well. And then secondly, since um, since the federal government changed the tax treatment of alimony in 2017, Utah has not updated its code. So this simply directs judges to consider the tax consequences of alimony when calculating the award.

  2. Senate President (presiding)47:12

     Thank you for the presentation of the bill. Looking for comments or questions saying no discussion on the bill. I'm going to you for a motion. Thank

  3. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore47:23

     You Mr. President. I really enjoyed leaning over a desk. It was quite comfortable to use Senator Vickers mic before, but, uh, this is working fine. And I move that Senate Bill 59. Be read a third time.

  4. Senate President (presiding)47:35

     Thank you. Yeah. The question is, shall Senate bill 59 be read a third time? Roll call vote.

  5. Senate clerk (roll call)47:41

     Senator Vickers Baldy pass. Lewin No. Bramer Aye. Bus cullimore Esia Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay Macl Aye. Milner Musman Owens pitcher Plum rebe Sandal Aye. Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Filer Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye. Senate bill 59.

  6. Senate President (presiding)48:49

     Having received 24 yay votes, one nay vote, four being absent. Uh, shall be read a third time. Senator Reba, you ready for personal privilege?

  7. Sen. Kathleen A. Riebe48:58

     I am. Thank you Mr. President. Thank You. Today with us, we have, uh, people recognizing or organ donation day.

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (15 turns)

  1. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore31:35

     Thank you Mr. President. Uh, things change over time and laws sometimes struggle to keep up. So Senate Bill 59 just makes two small adjustments to current laws regarding alimony, uh, to, uh, avoid confusion and then keep up with, uh, changes in the federal tax code that have been made in the last decade.

  2. Senate President (presiding)31:58

     Does that conclude your presentation? Yes. Thank you. Is there discussion to this bill? Seeing none. Back to you, Senator Fillmore for summation or motion.

  3. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore32:08

     Thank you. I move that Senate Bill 59 pass

  4. Senate President (presiding)32:10

     And the question is, shall Senate bill 59 pass Roll call vote.

  5. Senate clerk32:14

     Senator Vickers Baldry Blue in Bramer Aye. Bus Aye. Comore as Camilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper Aye. Kins. Aye. Sson Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Johnson Musselman Aye. Owens pitcher Aye. Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton, president Adams

  6. Senate President (presiding)33:10

     Senate Bill 59, having received 22 yay votes, two na votes, five being absent passes the Senate be sent to the house for further consideration.

  7. Senate President (presiding)33:19

     Senate Bill 63, Senate bill 63 Assault modifications. Senator Brammer. Senator Brammer.

  8. Sen. Brady Brammer33:26

     Yeah, this is, uh, a bill that, uh, in, in mixed martial arts situations, as long as both people are participating and it's a common practice and part of the rules, uh, then choke holds are not banned. And so it just kind of updates our code to allow what is a, a pretty common practice in certain mixed martial arts, uh, situations.

  9. Sen. Brady Brammer33:48

     Okay. And, uh, with that I'm open to any questions.

  10. Senate President (presiding)33:52

      Thank you for the presentation discussion to the bill sing. None. Senator Brammer back to you.

  11. Sen. Brady Brammer33:59

      Yeah, I'll call the question. Thank you.

  12. Senate President (presiding)34:01

      And the question is, shall Senate Bill 63 pass Roll call Vote. Senator Vickers

  13. Senate clerk34:06

      Derry Blu in Bramer Bus Comore Es Camilla Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Pickers LER Wilson Winterton, president Adams

  14. Senate President (presiding)34:58

      Senate Bill 63 having received 26 8 votes, zero na votes, three being absent passes the Senate we sent to the House for further consideration. Senate Bill 68, Senate Bill 68 Disability Litigation Amendments. Senator Brammer. Senator Brammer.

  15. Sen. Brady Brammer35:17

      Yeah, this, this relates to litigation that's happening mostly in California and Florida, where, uh, they're using AI to go through,

• Feb 17, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore33:26

     Yeah, this is, uh, a bill that, uh, in, in mixed martial arts situations, as long as both people are participating and it's a common practice and part of the rules, uh, then choke holds are not banned. And so it just kind of updates our code to allow what is a, a pretty common practice in certain mixed martial arts, uh, situations. Okay. And, uh, with that I'm open to any questions.

  2. Presiding officer33:52speaker not certain

     Thank you for the presentation discussion to the bill sing. None. Senator Brammer back to you.

  3. Presiding officer33:59

     Yeah, I'll call the question. Thank you. And the question is, shall Senate Bill 63 pass Roll call Vote. Senator Vickers Derry Blu in Bramer Bus Comore Es Camilla Fillmore Grover Harper Aye. Hankins Aye. Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Pickers LER Wilson Winterton, president Adams Senate Bill 63 having received 26 8 votes, zero na votes, three being absent passes the Senate we sent to the House for further consideration.

  4. Presiding officer35:10

     Senate Bill 68, Senate Bill 68 Disability Litigation Amendments. Senator Brammer. Senator Brammer.

  5. Sen. Brady Brammer35:17

     Yeah, this, this relates to litigation that's happening mostly in California and Florida, where, uh, they're using AI to go through,

• Feb 23, 2026 House Judiciary Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (34 turns)

  1. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:05:43

     to the last item on our agenda, SB 59 Alimony Amendments by Senator Fillmore. We have Representative Cutler here as well. Yeah. And please proceed.

  2. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:05:57

     I do. I'm pleased to be joined by Representative Cutler because we both have constituents And what's, you know, sometimes those constituents will reach out to you. I don't often present before judiciary committees, but, you know, I had two constituents with alimony issues, so I put him in a bill, and then one of Cutler's constituents reached out to me. So he's here, uh, to speak to an amendment, um, uh, Senate bill or yeah, Senate Bill 59 just makes, uh, clarifications in the laws regarding alimony in two areas. One of those has to do with how the, um, the timing of cohabitation during a divorce proceeding works. And so my client is a lawyer who was representing someone in a divorce case whose soon to be ex-wife was cohabitating with another man for 12 months of this 16 month divorce proceeding. But she stopped cohabitating just before it came to trial. And therefore, because she was not cohabitating, that did not affect the divorce decree. So the policy change here would be to just simply say that cohabitating counts during the period, not just on the trial date. Uh, and, and so you can take that into account. And then the other has to do with, uh, in 2017, the tax cuts and jobs act change the tax treatment of alimony so that it's the payer of alimony rather than the recipient of alimony who pays the tax on that money. And so we have not updated our alimony statute in that time. So this simply says that judges should consider the tax effect of alimony when calculating the award. And I'll let Representative Cutler speak to the amendment that, uh, that we're, I guess, jointly proposing that, uh, we hope you'll adopt.

  3. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:07:40

     Thank you. The, uh, uh, in sub one, the policy change is previous to 2020, when alimony was considered, retirement was considered a foreseeable event, which meant that the judges took into account when retirement would happen, what the retirement assets were, uh, and if retirement would change when, when they were determining a, an alimony decree. And if, if they didn't want to do that, then they would write something in there to say. And if retirement changes, then you can change the alimony decree in 2020, the legislature, uh, decided, Hey, I think we want to clarify or flip this and say, retirement, uh, is a, a change in the retirement may not be a foreseeable, uh, event. And if retirement changes, then you can re uh, you may be able to re-litigate or, or, or apply for a change in the alimony, uh, situation unless the judge said it wasn't. So those people who had decrees prior to 2020 where the judge didn't write anything down, they had, he had been under the previous assumption that retirement was not something that would change, uh, their alimony decree and, and now they're in a different situation. Uh, essentially retroactive change to law, and this was made clear in 2024 when there was a reification, and the, the language, uh, in the, in the statute was, was updated. Uh, what you can see there on line, uh, 98, regardless of the date on which the divorce decree was entered. So we are taking this back to the earliest we researched the earliest point at which we could see the law was changed, which was the 2020, uh, session. So May 12th would be when that policy change went into effect into effect and are going back to that date to say if, if you had a chain or if, if you had a divorce alimony degree before that point, then the previous law applies after that. Then when the le legislature clarified after that 2020 session, you, uh, when the legislature clarified their intent, then you're under the new rules.

  4. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:10:05

     Okay. Coming back to the committee for clarifying questions or potential action representative. I think Lupe, no, it's me.

  5. Rep. Tiara Auxier2:10:15speaker not certain

     Representative Ox here. Yeah. Thank you. Um, thank you. I just had a question about the cohabitation part. So I know many people when they leave, sometimes they leave quickly and they move in with a friend or something like that until they can get on their feet. So I'm just wondering, I didn't actually look into what cohabitation like what you have to prove for that, but how would you prove the difference between a boyfriend and a friend that was a, or you know, an opposite sex friend or one that you were actually, um,

  6. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:10:46

     having relationship with? Well, That is a question of fact that would be decided by a court, but the definition of cohabitation for purposes of alimony includes a sexual relationship.

  7. Rep. Tiara Auxier2:10:55speaker not certain

     Okay. So they would have, how

  8. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:10:56

     That is determined is not affected by This. Okay. So they would have to just show that that was that kind of a relationship, not just that they had moved in with someone or someone had moved in with them. That's Correct. Okay.

  9. Rep. Tiara Auxier2:11:06speaker not certain

     Okay. Thank you.

  10. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:11:09

      Representative bucks here, seen no further alliance from move to public comment. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this bill? Seeing no hands, are there any individuals online? Okay. We have Seth Stewart online. We will hear from him. You have two minutes. Please state your name and the who you represent and turn on your camera.

  11. Seth Stewart, American Fork resident2:11:36

      Alright. Yeah. I'm Seth Stewart, representing myself from American Fork. Um, so I think we need to consider interaction effects here. Um, there are a lot of, uh, obviously tax implications with divorce and alimony burdens and requirements and so on. Um, rather than making this something i I, I guess maybe this is just broader philosophical, but it's, it's, it's to the points of raised in this bill of, uh, being required to consider the, the tax implications. I'm, I'm sure that's, that's a good thing and all. But, um, where does the, the cost and where does the, basically who pays that cost is, is part of what I'm asking. There's, our tax laws are very complicated. Um, I think if anything, this bill would be a slam dunk case for, um, lobbying the federal government Congress to repeal the 16th amendment and just return to a flat census tax where you just pay a, a fixed amount for being an adult person. Um, but yeah, as far as who ends up actually paying the cost footing the bills for this, I noticed that the fiscal note says zero. Um, but you know, couples who are involved in an alimony case, uh, I think this analysis imposes actually a significant additional cost burden just because of the complexity of tax laws. And so I'll submit that this, uh, imposes additional pressure on the couples and it imposes additional pressure. It should impose pressure on the state legislature to, uh, figure out how we can help reduce that complexity and cost. So thank you.

  12. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:13:08

      Thank you. Alright. Close public comment and come back to the committee for further questions or action.

  13. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:13:21

      Representative Abbott

  14. Rep. Abbott2:13:24

      Move, I move that we, uh, I'm not sure if I got your light. Did I get, I move that we Move to the next item on the agenda.

  15. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:13:33

      The motion is to move to the next item on the agenda. Would you like to speak to that?

  16. Rep. Abbott2:13:37

      Yes. I think, uh, representative ER's question raises my general concern with this entirely. Um, and I realize you guys aren't necessarily changing that much of the law, but you're, you're moving in the direction opposite of where I think we should be with this law. And that is, our law currently says we give alimony until they start cohabiting. And this just reinforces that and actually pulls it back and makes that even stronger, right? So there's more situations. I think that's just a terrible law because it encourages people if they want to have a sexual relation, okay, do it, but don't get married and don't cohabitate, and then you can still get your alimony. And that's, I've never understood why we think alimony ends when somebody starts having a sexual relation. Because alimony is supposed to say in my mind, Hey, during this marriage, one person developed their career, their education, whatever it was, while the other one supported them in doing that. And so we're going to pay alimony in order to compensate for that for a period of time. If the other person starts having a sexual relation in a cohabiting situation, it doesn't change that fact. So I'm, I wish, and I'm by moving the next item on the agenda, we don't necessarily change the law as it is, but at least we're not moving the wrong direction. So that's why I'm encouraging us to move to the next item on the agenda, if that makes sense.

  17. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore2:15:09

      Thank you, uh, to the sponsor. Uh, uh, that was unexpected. Um, you know, as far as I know, uh, other than Mr. Stewart, who, uh, there's no opposition to this bill. Uh, and I suppose Representative Abbott, none that I'm aware of, uh, I think it's pretty long standing held in all 50 states that when someone gets a divorce, um, specifically for what Representative Abbott talked about, you know, they're, they built a life together. There's change, they've been relying on each other. But as soon as one of those parties starts relying on somebody else for his or her support, the obligation of the original partner ends, I think that's been widely regarded. I understand why Representative Abbott, I mean, I shouldn't say I understand why. I understand that Representative Abbott doesn't support that idea. Uh, but I think there's no need for an ex-husband or an ex-wife to continue paying to support, uh, a former partner who is now, uh, shacked up or married to someone else and can rely on that person for support. So, uh, I, I would, uh, ask the committee to, uh, reject this motion and, uh, let's, uh, adopt this consensus. Bill,

  18. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:16:16

      Thank you. Discussion to the motion

  19. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:16:22

      Representative Miller,

  20. Rep. Tracy Miller2:16:25

      I'm going to make a counter motion to adopt the substitute and favorably recommend.

  21. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:16:30

      Well, that's two motions. Okay. Well, so that would be out of order.

  22. Rep. Tracy Miller2:16:34

      I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll be completely out of order. I'll do favorably recommend, and when it's way too late, we'll adopt the motion. Uh, a joke. A joke. I'll, I'll motion to, to, to, so I'll, I'll, I'll withdraw the, the, the out of order motion to, uh, favorably recommend and just make the motion to adopt this, uh, the, uh, first substitute.

  23. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:16:51

      Okay. The motion is to adopt the first substitute to Senate bill 59. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  24. Rep. Tracy Miller2:17:02

      I'll waive He waives to the sponsor. This is a better motion of this motion

  25. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:17:12

      Discussion To this motion. Seeing no lights will do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. No. Okay. Will the No. Raise their hands. There's two and then I think I'll be a no as well. So six to three, that motion passes.

  26. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:17:37

      Um, the next motion we are waiting for?

  27. Rep. Tracy Miller2:17:43

      Yeah, I guess the second in my counter, uh, motion series would be to favorably adopt first substitute of Senate bill 59 with favorable recommend, uh, recommendation to be sent to the, uh, house floor.

  28. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:17:57

      Okay. The motion is to, excuse me, favorably. Recommend the first substitute for Senate Bill 59. Would you like to speed to

  29. Rep. Tracy Miller2:18:06

      That? Waive

  30. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:18:08

      To the sponsor?

  31. Rep. Tracy Miller2:18:09

      I will also waive Okay. To the committee for discussion.

  32. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:18:18

      Seeing no lights. Uh, we'll do a roll call Vote. Representative Abbott, No. Acton? Yes. Oxia? No gracious. Yes. Hawkins Lube. Yes. Manga. Millard? Yes. And Libe? No. That motion passes. Says five to four. Thank you for coming to our committee today. And I Did we do the minutes? We did. Okay.

  33. Committee chair Rep. Karianne Lisonbee2:18:57

      I'll take one final motion. The motion is to adjourn. We are adjourned. Thanks, committee.

  34. Unknown speaker2:19:03speaker not certain

      Thanks Grant. I'm sorry. I wish I had some water on end.

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (9 turns)

  1. Meeting clerk47:41

     Meeting clerk Our substitute Senate bill 59 Alimony amendments by Senator Fillmore. This bill was served in judiciary with a vote of 5 4 2. The house sponsors Representative Cutler, Representative Cutler.

  2. Rep. Paul A. Cutler47:57

     Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. This bill, uh, makes some, uh, changes to alimony statute. There are three changes to be aware of. Number one, when the tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in 2017, it changed the way, uh, the federal tax treatment of alimony. Many states since then have updated their code to say, judges should take that into account the tax treatment. This also says Utah should take that into account the tax treatment of alimony. Point number two, previous to 2020, uh, the retirement was known as a foreseeable event in determining alimony, meaning that the judge took into account when, uh, retirement was planned and that you should plan that, that, uh, the alimony didn't change if retirement changed unless otherwise specified. In 2020, the legislature changed, uh, the code, which previously stated that it was a foreseeable, uh, event and added specific language around retirement, basically reversing it, saying if, uh, unless otherwise specified, if retirement changes, then you can apply to have a change in alimony. So this just goes back and holds harmless. Those people whose, uh, alimony, uh, was determined before 2020 to say they are under the old law. And, uh, because those decrees had not, didn't require, uh, the judge to specify if retirement changes, then your alimony changes. Then the third policy change clarifies the timing around cohabiting, uh, in the period, uh, of a contested divorce or after a divorce. The, the policy has been that if a, uh, if there is cohabiting or if somebody gets married again, then alimony you can apply to have alimony, uh, ordered changed. There was a somewhat of a loophole that said the cohabit, uh, that cohabitating only terminates a preexisting alimony award. This changes it so that cohabitating impacts the creation of the alimony award, uh, as well. And there was an incentive where you could somewhat game the system, you could cohabitate and then if you stopped cohabitating right before you Uintah see the judge, you could say, I'm not cohabitating. Therefore you can't, uh, eliminate alimony. This closes that loophole. Thank

  3. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)50:32

     You. Thank you Representative Cutler discussion to the bill Representative Teuscher.

  4. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher50:37

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move, uh, substitute to to H or SB 59. Motion is to adopt second substitute SB 59. Would you like to speak to it? I would. Um, this is a bill. It doesn't change anything that, uh, the good sponsor just talked about, but it does add another section to alimony. And this is an issue that was recently brought up to me where, um, as, as the good sponsor, uh, mentioned, typically when you have alimony and, uh, and then you're remarried, uh, the you no longer receive alimony. Well, there there is a, a circumstance where someone could be married, uh, get divorced, maybe the marriage was for, for 20 years. They get divorced and then decide that they're going to get remarried. So they get remarried and then maybe quickly after divorce again, at that point, it reset the alimony clock. Um, what this substitute does is it just says that in that situation where you're remarried to the exact same person, that when the court considers the length of the marriage, generally it should aggregate both of the marriages together when considering alimony, rather than having that, um, perverse incentive and, and maybe gamesmanship that can happen by having a subsequent marriage that resets the alimony clock. It does include a provision that, uh, the court can decline to consider the aggregate of the two marriages as the length of the marriage. If they find by a preponderance of the evidence that aggregating the two marriages would, would be inequitable. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

  5. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)52:04

     Thank you, Representative Teuscher. Representative Cutler to the motion to substitute.

  6. Rep. Paul A. Cutler52:07

     Uh, this is a friendly substitute. I think it closes, uh, another loophole and it's good policy.

  7. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)52:12

     Thank you. The motion is to adopt second substitute Senate Bill 59. Discussion to the motion. See none Representative Teuscher for summation, I'll waive Place a motion to adopt second substitute Senate Bill 59. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries this substitute is adopted. Further discussion to the bill. Seen none. Representative Cutler for summation. I think this has a number of policies that help us improve the alimony, uh, process and appreciate the body's support in closing some of these loopholes.

  8. Rep. Paul A. Cutler52:37

     I think this has a number of policies that help us improve the alimony, uh, process and appreciate the body's support in closing some of these loopholes.

  9. Speaker Pro Tem (presiding)52:46

     Thank you. Representative Cutler Voting is open on second substitute Senate Bill 59 alimony amendments, seeing all present, having voted voting will be closed. Second substitute Senate bill 59, having received 55 yay votes and zero Navos passes the house and be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.

• Feb 26, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (8 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)50:39speaker not certain

     I move, uh, substitute to to H or SB 59. Motion is to adopt second substitute SB 59. Would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher50:49

     I would. Um, this is a bill. It doesn't change anything that, uh, the good sponsor just talked about, but it does add another section to alimony. And this is an issue that was recently brought up to me where, um, as, as the good sponsor, uh, mentioned, typically when you have alimony and, uh, and then you're remarried, uh, the you no longer receive alimony. Well, there there is a, a circumstance where someone could be married, uh, get divorced, maybe the marriage was for, for 20 years. They get divorced and then decide that they're going to get remarried. So they get remarried and then maybe quickly after divorce again, at that point, it reset the alimony clock. Um, what this substitute does is it just says that in that situation where you're remarried to the exact same person, that when the court considers the length of the marriage, generally it should aggregate both of the marriages together when considering alimony, rather than having that, um, perverse incentive and, and maybe gamesmanship that can happen by having a subsequent marriage that resets the alimony clock. It does include a provision that, uh, the court can decline to consider the aggregate of the two marriages as the length of the marriage. If they find by a preponderance of the evidence that aggregating the two marriages would, would be inequitable. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)52:04

     Thank you, Representative Teuscher. Representative Cutler to the motion to substitute.

  4. Rep. Paul A. Cutler52:07

     Uh, this is a friendly substitute. I think it closes, uh, another loophole and it's good policy.

  5. Speaker (presiding)52:12

     Thank you. The motion is to adopt second substitute Senate Bill 59. Discussion to the motion. See none Representative Teuscher for summation, I'll waive Place a motion to adopt second substitute Senate Bill 59. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries this substitute is adopted. Further discussion to the bill. Seen none. Representative Cutler for summation.

  6. Rep. Paul A. Cutler52:37

     I think this has a number of policies that help us improve the alimony, uh, process and appreciate the body's support in closing some of these loopholes.

  7. Speaker (presiding)52:46

     Thank you. Representative Cutler Voting is open on second substitute Senate Bill 59 alimony amendments, seeing all present, having voted voting will be closed. Second substitute Senate bill 59, having received 55 yay votes and zero Navos passes the house and be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration.

  8. Unknown speaker54:20speaker not certain

     Speaker Schultz, Uh, personal privilege Mr.

• Feb 27, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore24:34

     Thank you Mr. President. You'll remember that I had two constituents reach out to me on this issue. It turns out I'm not the only one up here with constituents and so over in the house, they had two parties reached out and so there were two small amendments to the bill. One that, uh, uh, went back to fix a problem that we created in 2020 by changing a lot without specifying which divorces it applied to. So we fixed that retroactive, uh, piece. And then also, uh, uh, put in language about when the court shall consider the length of two marriages between the same individuals. For purposes of determining alimony, I move to concur.

  2. Senate President (presiding)25:11

     Thank you. We have a motion to concur. Do we have discussion? Say none. I'll place the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule. Motion passes. Second substitute Senate bill 59 has been read three times. The question is, shall it pass? Roll call vote.

  3. Senate President (presiding)25:26

     Senator Vickers. Baldry Aye. Lewin Brammer Aye. Bus? Aye. Comore Escamilla. Aye. Fillmore Aye. Grover Aye. Harper. Aye. Kinins. Aye. Ipson a Johnson Wan McKay Mikel Milner Musselman, we do this Owens personal privilege with these Aye. Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Aye. Weiler Aye. Wilson. Aye. Winterton President Adams Aye. Second substitute Senate Bill 59. Having received 24 yay votes, one nay vote, four being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for the signature of the speaker.

  4. Senate President (presiding)26:19

     Senator Kwan, are you ready? Go ahead.

  5. Sen. Karen Kwan26:22

     Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, first of all, I wanna give a, a tutorial.