The Utah Court of Appeals issued a ruling on September 11, 2026, regarding the divorce case of Emily Curtis Bonham and Brandon Reynolds Bonham. The court's decision affects the division of property, alimony, and attorney fees, which are crucial for both parties as they navigate their post-divorce lives. This ruling not only impacts the Bonhams but also sets a precedent for future divorce cases in Utah.
Emily and Brandon Bonham married in July 1998 and separated in July 2019 after Brandon admitted to having an affair that led to the birth of a child. Emily filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences and the affair. The couple shares four children, three of whom were minors at the time of separation. Their marital estate included a home and a business, RMT Equipment (RMT). The case was initially heard in the Third District Court in Salt Lake City, where Judge Richard D. McKelvie presided over the proceedings.
During the divorce proceedings, Brandon sought temporary orders regarding custody and financial matters. He declared that his father was purchasing a property for him to rent, which would later be bought by Brandon after the divorce was finalized. The court issued a temporary order that granted Emily possession of the marital home and required Brandon to operate RMT while paying Emily a salary and family support. The couple agreed that Brandon would pay $25,000 toward Emily's attorney fees, with her parents covering additional costs.
The case culminated in a four-day bench trial in August and September 2022, where both parties presented extensive evidence regarding their marital estate. The court ultimately issued a divorce decree that included findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court largely adopted Emily's proposed findings, which included the calculation of child support and alimony. Brandon was ordered to pay Emily $1,926 per month in child support and $7,181 in alimony for 21 years, reflecting the length of their marriage.
The court also addressed the division of their marital assets. It awarded Emily the marital home and ordered the equity to be divided equally. Regarding the Haven Oaks house, which Brandon purchased from his father, the court found that he failed to disclose this transaction in a timely manner, leading to sanctions. The court determined that Brandon had dissipated at least $367,599 from the marital estate by making various purchases during the divorce proceedings, which included luxury items and gifts.
Judge Gregory K. Orme authored the opinion, with Judges Michele M. Christiansen Forster and John D. Luthy concurring. In their ruling, the court affirmed some aspects of the lower court's decision while reversing others. The court stated, "We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." This indicates that while some decisions were upheld, others required further review or adjustment.
The court's ruling means that both parties must now navigate the implications of the decision. Brandon's financial obligations, including child support and alimony, remain significant, while Emily's financial situation is impacted by the court's decision on attorney fees and property division. The ruling also highlights the importance of transparency in financial disclosures during divorce proceedings, as Brandon's failure to disclose certain assets led to sanctions that affected the division of property.
Moving forward, the case sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar issues in divorce cases, particularly regarding the disclosure of assets and the consequences of failing to do so. It emphasizes the need for both parties to be forthcoming about their financial situations to ensure equitable outcomes.
As for what’s next, Brandon may choose to appeal certain aspects of the ruling, particularly regarding the sanctions imposed for asset dissipation and the valuation of marital property. The court's decision to remand certain issues back to the lower court for further proceedings suggests that there may be additional developments in this case. However, details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.