Common Mistakes to Avoid
(A Saratoga Springs, Lehi, Eagle Mountain, and American Fork local Guide)
Divorce is rarely won on the day of trial. Most outcomes are shaped much earlier—by what you document, what you do with money, how you communicate, and how you present as a parent while the case is pending. In Utah County—whether you’re filing in Saratoga Springs, Lehi, Eagle Mountain, American Fork, or the surrouding areas, the same pattern shows up again and again: people unintentionally create facts that the court later relies on, and then spend months (and thousands of dollars) trying to undo preventable damage.
Utah judges have wide discretion to make “equitable” orders on property distribution and alimony, and appellate courts do not lightly reverse those decisions. Merrill v. Merrill (2024 UT App 94) (quoting Olsen v. Olsen, 2007 UT App 296). That’s a polite way of saying: if you hand the court a messy record, you may be living with the consequences.
What follows is a practical, narrative guide to common divorce mistakes I see—and the Utah statutes and cases that explain why they matter.
Property: treating “equitable” like “automatic 50/50”
One of the earliest mistakes is assuming Utah divorce is a math problem. It is not. Utah requires an equitable division of marital property—fair, not necessarily equal. The Utah Courts’ own public guidance puts it plainly: equitable means fair, “not necessarily equal.” (utcourts.gov)
That matters in real life because Utah County divorces commonly involve complications that do not divide neatly: a home with shifting equity, retirement accounts, stock or incentive compensation, side businesses, or debt that was incurred for mixed reasons. If you delay gathering records, you often end up negotiating in the dark—or worse, letting the other side define the narrative.
Valuation is another place people stumble. Utah appellate courts repeatedly emphasize that assigning values to marital assets is largely a trial-court function and is reviewed deferentially. Mintz v. Mintz (2023 UT App) (citing Talley v. Talley, 739 P.2d 83 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)). (Justia Law) If you do not build a clean record for value (appraisals, account statements, business records), you reduce your ability to challenge a bad number later.
Financial conduct: dissipation and the “I’ll fix it later” myth
Another common mistake is believing that money moves during separation can be explained away later. Sometimes they can’t.
Utah recognizes “dissipation” claims—when one spouse’s conduct diminishes the marital estate in a way the court may remedy in the property division. The burden framework is important: the spouse alleging dissipation has to make an initial showing of apparent dissipation, and then the burden can shift to the other spouse to account for the missing money and show it was used for legitimate marital purposes. Parker v. Parker, 2000 UT App 30. (Justia Law)
More recently, the Utah Court of Appeals in Hillam v. Hillam, 2024 UT App 102, discussed dissipation analysis and referenced the factors described in Rayner v. Rayner, 2013 UT App 269. (Justia Law) The practical point is simple: if you are spending unusually, draining accounts, running up credit, or moving assets around, you are manufacturing issues that tend to be expensive to litigate and hard to “explain” in a way that feels credible to a judge.
Temporary stability: ignoring temporary orders and the domestic relations injunction
In Utah divorce, the case begins long before the decree. Utah law imposes a waiting period before a decree can enter, but it also authorizes interim orders during that period. Utah Code § 81-4-402(3). (Utah Legislature)
Separately, Utah has an automatic domestic relations injunction in many domestic cases. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 109 provides that, unless the court orders otherwise, an injunction enters when the initial petition is filed in divorce and other specified actions. (legacy.utcourts.gov) The Utah Courts’ guidance explains that this injunction is meant to prevent actions like disturbing the peace, changing insurance, or otherwise destabilizing the situation while the case is pending. (utcourts.gov)
A frequent mistake is treating this phase casually—“we agreed by text,” “we’ve always done it this way,” “I’ll just take the money and replace it.” When the relationship is collapsing, informal agreements break down fast, and judges tend to favor the party who followed the rules and preserved stability.
Custody: litigating like a spouse instead of parenting like a judge is watching
Parents often think custody disputes are about who was the better spouse or who is more morally offended. Utah custody law is not built around marital fault. It is built around the child’s best interests, and the statute lays out specific factors the court must consider. Utah Code § 81-9-204. (Utah Legislature)
If you want the short version of what judges respond to: stability, cooperation, decision-making, and the ability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent (when safe and appropriate). If you want the expensive version: withholding parent-time, using the child as leverage, “gatekeeping” communication, and creating conflict on purpose. Those behaviors create record evidence that you are unwilling to co-parent—and that can matter more than who “started it.”
Alimony: negotiating without understanding the legal factors
Utah alimony is not a one-line formula, and the outcome is highly dependent on evidence. Utah Code § 81-4-502 requires the court to consider multiple factors, including the marital standard of living, the recipient’s need/ability to produce income, and the payor’s ability to provide support. (Utah Legislature)
Where people get hurt is when they negotiate alimony without proving—or disproving—reasonable monthly expenses and the marital standard of living. Several recent Utah Court of Appeals opinions emphasize how central those expense findings are. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 2024 UT App (discussing the role of evidence of marital expenses/standard of living). (Justia Law) Hoidal v. Berry, 2024 UT App 157 (affirming detailed expense analysis tied to the parties’ standard of living at separation). (Justia Law)
Translation: if you don’t get the financial story right—income, reasonable expenses, and the actual marital lifestyle—you risk either overpaying or under-collecting for years.
Social media and messaging: gifting the other side exhibits
Divorce litigation runs on exhibits. People hand them over for free every day.
Posts about dating, purchases, vacations, “subtle” jabs, and parenting commentary are routinely used to attack credibility and judgment—especially in custody disputes. Even when a post feels harmless, the other side doesn’t have to prove you’re a bad person; they only need to show the court a pattern that supports their requested outcome. If you want to keep your case about the facts that matter, stop creating new facts online.
Taxes and settlement structure: leaving money on the table
Many divorces settle with language that “feels fair” but is economically sloppy. Tax treatment of support, dependency claims, and who benefits from a tax exemption can make a real difference in net outcomes.
Utah’s child support provisions address tax exemptions and require that an exemption not be awarded unless it results in a tax benefit to that parent. Utah Code § 81-6-210. (Utah Legislature) This is the kind of issue that can be negotiated intelligently—but only if someone is paying attention early enough.
The biggest meta-mistake: waiting too long to get organized
The common thread in almost every “divorce regret” story is delay: waiting to gather financial documents, waiting to stabilize parenting routines, waiting to stop emotional texting, waiting to protect credit, waiting to get legal advice until after the other side has already framed the case.
You do not need to rush into war. But you do need to stop making unforced errors.
If you are searching for:
• Utah alimony lawyer
• Saratoga Springs divorce attorney
• Eagle Mountain spousal support attorney
• Lehi divorce lawyer
• Bluffdale family law attorney
• American Fork alimony attorney
• Provo divorce and mediation services
Rifleman Law & Mediation provides strategic, evidence-driven representation focused on protecting your financial future.
Divorce cases are won or lost on evidence clarity. Courts must make detailed findings based on evidence, not testimony alone.
If you would like a case-specific evaluation of your divorce, modification, or custody and support case, in Saratoga Springs, Eagle Mountain, Lehi, Bluffdale, American Fork, Provo or anywhere in Utah County (see our Service Areas), contact Rifleman Law & Mediation to schedule a consultation.
Standard disclaimer: This is general legal information for Utah and is not legal advice for any specific case.