In Utah's equitable distribution framework, debts incurred during the marriage are treated as marital debts and are subject to fair division between spouses upon divorce. The key points regarding the treatment of debts are as follows:

• Marital vs. Non-Marital Debt:
  Debts acquired during the marriage for family purposes—such as mortgages, car loans, liens on property, and other debts related to family assets—are considered marital debts and are subject to equitable distribution. Debts brought into the marriage by one spouse or incurred solely for that spouse’s individual benefit typically remain that spouse’s responsibility (non-marital debt).

• Equitable Distribution, Not Necessarily Equal:
  Utah courts aim to divide marital debts fairly but not necessarily equally. The division considers multiple factors, including each spouse’s contribution to the marriage (income, homemaking, childcare), earning capacity, financial circumstances, duration of the marriage, and custodial arrangements.

• Presumption of 50/50 Division:
  There is a starting presumption that marital debts and assets will be divided equally (50/50). However, courts may deviate from this presumption if justified by circumstances such as dissipation of assets or unique equity considerations like premarital contributions or inheritances that were not fully commingled.

• Debt Associated with Property:
  If one spouse retains a marital property after divorce (e.g., the family home or a vehicle), that spouse typically assumes responsibility for the debt associated with that property, such as mortgage or car payments.

• Agreement Between Parties:
  If spouses agree on how to divide debts, their agreement will be incorporated into the divorce decree. If not, the court will decide based on the equitable distribution principles outlined above.

In summary, Utah treats debts incurred during the marriage as marital debts subject to equitable distribution, balancing fairness with the specific circumstances of the spouses and the nature of the debts involved. The court’s goal is to ensure a fair allocation rather than a strict equal split, taking into account contributions, financial ability, and the purpose of the debt.