Court Reverses Dissipation Award in Bonham Divorce
The Utah Court of Appeals sent a dissipation award against Brandon Bonham back to the district court for reconsideration.
Updated on Nov. 6, 2026 in Divorce
Live Poll
Should courts impose harsher financial penalties on spouses who violate divorce asset orders?
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed a 75% marital asset dissipation award against Brandon Reynolds Bonham and remanded the matter to the district court. Bonham was found to have spent at least $367,599 in marital money during divorce proceedings from his wife, Emily Bonham.
Why it matters
The ruling shows that courts may reassess how much a spouse must repay for marital money spent during divorce, affecting how property is divided. For Utah residents going through divorce, it highlights the importance of accounting for every dollar spent while temporary orders are in place.
The appellate court reversed a 75% award that had been ordered against Brandon Reynolds Bonham for at least $367,599 in dissipated marital money. The remaining questions on house equity, expenses and alimony tax rate are still to be determined by the lower court.
The players
Utah Court of Appeals
The Utah Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court that reviews decisions of the state's district courts.
Brandon Reynolds Bonham
Brandon Reynolds Bonham is the former husband whose spending of marital funds during divorce led to the dissipation award.
Emily Bonham
Emily Bonham is the former wife who petitioned for divorce citing irreconcilable differences and her husband's extramarital affair.
The details
Brandon Reynolds Bonham purchased an Airstream trailer, a BMW for one daughter and jewelry for his daughters with marital money during proceedings, and the district court held him in contempt for violating temporary orders barring dissipation without his wife's consent. He disclosed some purchases only after Emily Bonham discovered them and did not provide a full accounting of the money used.
Timeline
July 1998: Emily and Brandon Bonham married.
July 2019: The couple separated.
August and September 2022: The divorce trial was held over four days.
November 6, 2026: The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the award and remanded the case.
Legal Context
Utah courts apply the dissipation doctrine to penalize a spouse who wastes marital funds during divorce, and this appeal shows how such awards are scrutinized for accuracy. The remand signals that the percentage and calculation of repayment remain subject to appellate review.
Spouses going through divorce should keep detailed records of all marital money spent, since courts may impose repayment for dissipated funds. Requests for temporary orders against spending can be enforced through contempt findings.
The takeaway
Keeping transparent records of marital spending during divorce can prevent costly disputes and dissipation claims. Courts closely scrutinize who paid for what once temporary orders are in place.
What happens next
The Utah district court must hold further proceedings on the house equity, Brandon Bonham's monthly expenses and his alimony tax rate on remand.
Further reading
For more on how property is split when marriages end, see Divorce coverage.
Source note: This article includes information reported by The Times of India.
Live Poll
Should courts impose harsher financial penalties on spouses who violate divorce asset orders?
