Utah man spent at least $367,599 on an Airstream trailer, a BMW and jewellery during divorce; appeals court sends marital asset dispute back for review | World News

A Utah man was found to have spent at least $367,599 during his divorce on purchases including an Airstream trailer, a BMW for one daughter and jewellery for his daughters. The district court found that Brandon Reynolds Bonham had violated court orders by spending marital money without his wife’s consent.It also found that he had failed to disclose expenditures and provide an account of the money used. The court ordered him to pay his former wife 75% of the amount found dissipated, but the appeals court reversed that award. According to the Utah Court of Appeals’ judgment in Bonham v. Bonham, the lower court must reassess dissipation and award Emily half of the total established.

Brandon Bonham spent marital money during divorce proceedings

Emily and Brandon Bonham married in July 1998 and separated in July 2019 after Brandon admitted to an extramarital affair that resulted in the birth of a child. Emily petitioned for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences and the affair. They had four children together, three of whom were minors when she filed.The couple also had a large marital estate, including a home and RMT Equipment, a business that Brandon continued to operate during the proceedings. Under temporary orders, he was required to pay Emily monthly family support and salary through RMT, cover vehicle and health insurance costs, and share the cost of the children’s existing extracurricular activities. The divorce trial took place over four days in August and September 2022.

Court found at least $367,599 in marital asset dissipation

The district court said the parties were subject to a rule preventing either from disposing of marital property without the other’s consent. Its temporary order also prohibited them from dissipating or liquidating marital assets. The court found that Brandon had intentionally breached those restrictions on multiple occasions. It said he spent thousands of dollars on toys, gifts, holidays and other purchases during the litigation.According to the findings, he disclosed the purchases after Emily discovered them and did not provide a full accounting of the marital money used. The court identified at least $367,599 in dissipation, while stating that the total was likely higher. Listed expenditures included an Airstream trailer, a BMW for a daughter and jewellery for the daughters.

Brandon challenges 75% marital asset dissipation award

The district court held Brandon in contempt and imposed a sanction under Utah law. Rather than awarding Emily half of the amount found to have been dissipated, it ordered Brandon to pay her 75%. The court said the higher share reflected his repeated violations of the injunction and temporary orders, as well as his failure to disclose enough information to assess the marital estate and identify purchases made with marital funds.In a post-trial motion, Brandon argued he had disclosed much of the spending, including the Airstream and a dirt bike. He also disputed other parts of the divorce decree, including property valuations, alimony, support arrears and attorney fees.

Appeals court orders fresh review of marital assets and alimony

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed parts of the divorce decree but reversed others and sent several issues back to the district court. On marital asset dissipation, it reversed the 75% award and directed the lower court to make adequate findings about what dissipation had occurred. Emily was to receive half of the total established. The appeals court also reversed the award of equity in the Rolling Brook house, ordering the district court to decide whether it was marital or Brandon’s separate property. It required further findings on Brandon’s reasonable monthly expenses and tax rate when calculating his ability to pay alimony. The court also ordered revisions to support arrears and further assessment of both initial and post-trial attorney fees.Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available court records. The Times of India has not independently verified the expenditures, allegations of marital asset dissipation, court findings or claims made by either party. The findings and rulings are subject to further review by the lower court as directed by the Utah Court of Appeals.