{1 Respondent Wayne Kelley appeals the trial court's orders pertaining to his relationship with petitioner Sonia Kelley. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
BACKGROUND
T2 Sonia and Wayne married on May 24, 1980 and subsequently had two children. During their marriage, Wayne worked in the construction industry. Wayne founded Altex Construction in Alaska and owned a majority interest in another company, DSI. Wayne's work required him to make extended stays away from home, during which he occasional ly rented an apartment.
13 In 1994, the terms of a purchase by DSI of another company placed Wayne's personal assets at risk. To minimize this risk and protect the family home, Wayne and Sonia agreed to divorcee, transfer title to Sonia individually, but continue to live as husband and wife. Accordingly, Sonia and Wayne obtained a divorce decree entered on July 18, 1994.
14 This decree provided that Sonia was awarded primary custody of the children, Wayne was to pay child support totaling $1,000 per month, and Sonia was "awarded the sum of not less than $1,000.00 per month as alimony from [Wayne], said alimony to continue for three years, or until [Sonia] remarries, or until terminated by statute, whichever shall occur first." Among the property distributed, Sonia was awarded the marital residence in Bountiful, Utah, and two automobiles. Wayne was awarded all other real property, one automobile, and his personal effects.
T5 Following their 1994 divorcee, Wayne and Sonia made no change in their pre-divorce relationship or living arrangements. Wayne and Sonia continued to cohabit, subject to the traveling demands of Wayne's work, which included obtaining an apartment in Texas. They did not tell their children or anyone else in the community that they had divorced. Their financial relationship remained the same, with Wayne providing funds "at the same standard of living which had existed prior to the entry of the Decree of Divorce."1 They continued to socialize together, including attending a Christmas *174party in 1994 and taking a family vacation in 1995. In May 1995, Wayne gave Sonia an anniversary card indicating he loved her and wished to spend another fifteen years together.
6 In the fall of 1995, Sonia became suspicious that Wayne was romantically involved with another woman. With Wayne's assurance that the relationship was over, however, Wayne and Sonia reconciled-until a few months later. In the spring of 1996, Sonia discovered that Wayne had continued his relationship with the other woman, which precipitated a May 1996 altercation. Wayne subsequently cut off financial support for Sonia and Sonia sought legal counsel.
T7 On July 10, 1996, Sonia moved to modify the divorce decree, asserting such decree was fraudulently obtained and that "[slince the entry of the Decree of Divorce, [Wayne] has fully supported the family by paying over to [Sonia] the approximate sum of $7,500 each month" but that said support had ceased. The court entered a temporary order which provided, inter alia, that Sonia have custody of the children, Wayne make child support and alimony payments totaling $6,000 per month, and that Wayne pay $5,000 in temporary attorney fees. Also on July 10, 1996, Sonia filed a separate action to establish a common law marriage between her and Wayne effective on the day the decree was entered, July 18, 1994, and to obtain a divorce therefrom. This second proceeding was consolidated with the first. In July 1997, Sonia filed another separate action against Wayne seeking damages for fraud and other claims, which was likewise consolidated into the divorce/modification proceedings.
T8 Before the matter came for trial, on August 18, 1997, Wayne moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that there can be no establishment of a common law marriage following the 1994 divorcee because no such adjudication or determination was obtained within one year of the relationship's termination as required by section 830-1-4.5(2) of the Utah Code. See Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-4.5 (1998). The trial court agreed that no timely determination was made, but concluded that the one year time restriction was unconstitutional. Specifically, the court concluded that although the restriction did not run afoul of the Open Courts Clause, see Utah Const. art. I, § 11, it did violate the Uniform Operation of Laws Clause. See Utah Const. art. I, § 24. Consequently, the court denied Wayne's motion for partial summary judgment.
T9 The matter was addressed during a bench trial, after which the trial court made factual findings. Regarding the existence of a common law marriage, the court's findings included the following:
9. ... [Wayne] proposed that the parties should enter into a divorcee so that the home could be placed in [Sonia's] name to protect it from potential of [sic] eredi-tors.... He represented to [Sonia] that the parties were not going to be separated and that nothing would change from how they had lived before.
10. During the Spring and Summer of 1994, the parties agreed to and did enter into a divorcee action, resulting in a divorce being entered on the 18th day of July, 1994, in the District Court of Davis County.... The Court finds that the agreement between the parties to divorcee was an agreement for a non-traditional divorce which created a legal fiction only, designed to protect the residence of the parties from the threat of creditors.
11. ... Both of the parties attended a parenting class and the Court accepts the testimony of Dr. Marty Hood and finds it is credible that during the intermission halfway through the parenting class, [Wayne] approached her and told her that the divorcee the parties were going through was only a business thing and that the children would never know there was even going to be a divoree and that there was no real need for them to continue to attend the class on how to deal with the children in a divorce situation. He further told her that there was not going to be a separation....
[[Image here]]
16. Prior to the divorce the standard of living of the parties was one in which respondent would give to petitioner $7,500 a month to pay bills This arrangement *175had existed for some substantial period of time....
17. Following the entry of the Decree of Divorcee in July, 1994, there was no change in the relationship of the parties and in their living arrangements. The parties continued to live the same as they had prior to the divorce. Title to marital residence was not transferred until after this action was filed. The title to the Kodiak property was never transferred. The parties continued to maintain a joint checking account. The parties filed a joint 1994 income tax return, reflecting that they were husband and wife as of the end of 1994.[2] The parties continued to cohabit with sexual relations. The children, who at that time were nine and three and one-half years of age, were never told about any changes in their parents' relationship.
18. In July, 1994, the parties appeared at a counseling class and told the counselor that this divorcee was only for business purposes and that the children would never know that the parties were divorced. The parties continued to socialize together; they attended a Christmas party together in December 1994, each held the other out as a married couple. No one in the community was told of the divorcee at that time. During this time, respondent maintained an apartment in Texas.
[[Image here]]
20. In May 1995, [Wayne] sent petitioner an anniversary card in which he indicated he loved her and a wish for another 15 years.... ~
21. In the summer of 1995, as part of a family vacation, the parties traveled to Mexico, shared a room{,] and had sexual relations.
[[Image here]]
24. During the entire period from the entry of the Decree of Divorcel[,] the financial relationship remained the same and [Wayne] provided [Sonia] with funds at the same standard of living which had existed prior to the entry of the Decree of Divorce.
[[Image here]]
27. The Court finds that as of the entry of the Decree of Divoree on July 18, 1994, [Sonia] knew that they would have to remarry. As of that day, the parties were unmarried. They continued their marital relationship, they continued to cohabit, they continued to treat each other as married, they had joint checking accounts, and [Wayne] maintained all of his personal property at the marital residence. The parties filed joint income tax returns for the 1994 year. [Wayne] sent [Sonia) money from which she serviced joint debts. The parties maintained joint credit cards. The parties held themselves out as married in the area of their domicile in Davis County, and in that area of the domicile had the reputation of being married. They held themselves out to their children as married. The parties continued to cohabit and hold each other out as spouse through April of 1996. The parties had a reputation in the community for being married and all of these actions arise out of a contract between two consenting parties.
The court further determined that Wayne had the current ability to produce $10,000 per month in income.
[ 10 Through its findings and conclusions and the new divorce decree, both entered July 22, 1999, the trial court concluded: (1) that Sonia's action based upon fraud must fail; (2) that the parties entered a common law marriage which "commenced immediately following the entry of the Decree of Divorce" on July 18, 1994, and terminated in June 1996; and (8) that there was a change of cireumstances since the first divorcee decree "based upon the common law marriage of the parties" warranting a modification of the first decree. The court dismissed Sonia's suit for fraud and related matters, declared the existence of a common law marriage, granted Sonia a divorce, and modified the first decree to redistribute the property. The court further awarded custody of the children to Sonia and ordered Wayne to pay $2,000 per month child support and $3,000 per month alimony. Regarding the alimony, the court ordered that "based upon the mar*176riage of the parties from 1980 to 1996, [Sonia is entitled to alimony] for the period of 16 years or until such time as [Sonia] remarries, cohabits{,] or the death of either party." Finally, the court reduced to judgment the arrearages at that time the entry of the Temporary Order through the month of February, 1999," reflecting credit for Wayne's payments, totaling $56,151.60 for alimony and $87,434.40 for child support3 The court likewise reduced to judgment Sonia's attorney fees of $35,951.
11 After trial, Sonia moved the court to find Wayne in contempt for failing to pay the full amount of child support and alimony required by the temporary support order. Wayne did not dispute his failure to pay, claiming instead that he was unable to pay. During a hearing on the motion, Wayne testified to owing substantial debt and that his sole source of income was through his employment for Omega Oil at a salary of $6,000 per month. Wayne also testified that he was previously able to contribute to the support of Sonia and the children because he drew $10,000 per month as a loan from DSI and another $10,000 income per month from the Kodiak property. The court found that Wayne was aware of and failed to comply with the temporary order. Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing and its factual finding at trial, the court further found that Wayne had the ability to earn at least $10,000 per month and historically lived "far beyond that kind of income." Accordingly, the court determined that Wayne had the ability to comply with the temporary order and by clear and convincing evidence he was in contempt of court. The court stayed imposition of sanctions provided he begin to make payment on and remain current with his obligations.
1 12 Wayne appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. Non-solemnized Marriage Statute
Wayne first asserts the trial court erred in finding the time restriction of Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-4.5(2) (1998) unconstitutional and that such restriction barred the determination that there existed a valid non-solemnized marriage between Wayne and Sonia. The constitutionality and proper interpretation of a statute presents questions of law which we review for correctness. See State v. Lopes, 1999 UT 24, ¶ 6, 980 P.2d 191; Rushton v. Salt Lake County, 1999 UT 36, 1 17, 977 P.2d 1201.
14 In 1987, the Legislature adopted section 80-1-4.5 of the Utah Code to provide a mechanism by which the state will recognize a relationship as a marriage although there was no solemnization. This is commonly referred to as a common law marriage. The statute, however, restricts the time in which such a marriage may be established by providing: "The determination or establishment of a marriage under this seetion must occur during the relationship described in subsection (1), or within one year following the termination of that relationship." Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4.5(2) (1998). In Bunch v. Englehorn, 906 P.2d 918 (Utah Ct.App.1995), this court examined the plain language of that requirement and held that, "those who wish to establish their relationship as a marriage recognized by the state must obtain 'a court or administrative order' ... within one year of the termination of the relationship." Id. at 920 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 80-1-4.5(1)(1995)). In Bunch, because no order was entered within one year of the relationship's termination, we affirmed the dismissal of the action. See id. at 920-21.
115 The Utah Supreme Court has held that the Legislature has broad discretion to set time limits within which to bring actions, see Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572, 576 (Utah 1993), and recognized that limits to when claims can be brought promote the legitimate goals to "suppress stale and fraudulent claims so that claims are advanced *177while evidence to rebut them is still fresh." Craftsman Builder's Supply, Inc. v. Butler Mfg. Co., 1999 UT 18, ¶ 14, 974 P.2d 1194. Recently, however, the Utah Supreme Court announced its decision in In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 2000 UT 28, 1 P.3d 1074 (plurality opinion). In Gonzales a majority of the supreme court concluded that notwithstanding the plain language4 of section 30-1-4.5(2), and this court's decision in Bunch, section 30-1-4.5's time restriction "requires only the filing of a petition for adjudication of marriage within one year after the termination of the relationship." Gonzales 2000 UT 28 at ¶ 30; see id. at ¶ 48 (Zimmerman, J., concurring).
¶16 Looking at the facts here in light of Gonzalez, we must conclude the trial court erred in its initial determination that an establishment of a common law marriage was untimely under section 30-1-4.5(2). By the court's findings, the relationship continued at least until the May 1996 altercation. Because Sonia filed her action to establish the common law marriage July 10, 1996, it was well within the time restriction of section 30-1-4.5(2) as interpreted by the Gonzalez court. See id. at 180. Consequently, although the court erred in concluding the establishment was untimely and it did not need to reach the constitutional issues, it correctly denied Wayne's motion for partial summary judgment on that basis.
¶17 In his reply brief, Wayne asserts that Bunch rather than Gonzales, applics here because Sonia sought to establish a common law marriage and a divorcee. Wayne relies on dicta in Gongales in which the court purported to distinguish, rather than overrule, Bunch because no divorcee was sought in Gonzalez. See Gonzales, 2000 UT 28 at ¶ 29 n. 7. However, we can find no support for the proposition that in enacting section 80-1-4.5, the Legislature intended to create different rules and results for cases in which an establishment and a divorce is sought, and cases in which an establishment alone is sought. Unless this court is somehow now able to write new legislation contrary to statutes governing divorce, the distinction offered in Gonzalez is meaningless, notwithstanding the supreme court's protestations to the contrary. Consequently, we have no option but to conclude that Gongales overruled Bunch and applies here notwithstanding that Sonia sought to both establish the marriage and obtain a divorce.
II. Establishment of Common Law Marriage
118 Wayne asserts next that we should reverse the establishment of a common law marriage as unsupported by sufficient findings.5 In substance, however, Wayne does not assail the sufficiency of the court's findings, but the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those findings. "We do not reverse a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.": Young v. Young, 1999 UT 38, ¶ 15, 979 P.2d 338; accord Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a); Pennington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 973 P.2d 932, 937 (Utah *1781998). Further, to determine if the findings are against the clear weight of the evidence and thus clearly erroneous, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the findings. See State v. One 1984 Oldsmobile, 892 P.2d 1042, 1043 (Utah 1995); Lefavi v. Bertoch, 2000 UT App 5, ¶ 17, 994 P.2d 817.
119 Wayne asserts that the court failed to make findings dealing with the following evidence: (1) his spending time in Texas in a home wherein another woman resided; (2) Sonia asking Wayne if he was planning to marry this other woman; and (8) testimony regarding the reputation as husband and wife was given only by Utah residents. In so doing, Wayne merely reargues his view of the evidence. He has failed to marshal the other evidence supporting the court's findings on the section 80-1-4.5(1) factors as required,6 see Lefavi, 994 P.2d 817, 2000 UT App 5 at ¶ 17, or demonstrate that the findings were clearly erroneous. Simply stated, we are not persuaded that the findings were against the clear weight of the evidence.
III. Modification of the Decree
120 Wayne argues the court erred in modifying the first divorce decree because there was no substantial change of circumstances. "[Allthough we generally review the determination to modify a divorce decree for an abuse of discretion, insofar as that determination is based on a question of law, we review it for correctness." Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 10, 994 P.2d 210; accord Toone v. Toone, 952 P.2d 112, 114 (Utah Ct.App.1998).
121 The trial court determined there was a substantial change of circumstances based on the parties' entry into a common law marriage and Wayne's termination of support payments to Sonia. As we recently explained, "principles of res judicata require that 'a party seeking modification of a divoree decree must demonstrate that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the entry of the decree, and not contemplated in the decree itself"" Krambule, 994 P.2d 210, 1999 UT App 357 at ¶ 13 (citation omitted); see also Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(3), (7)(g)(i) (stating that the court has continuing jurisdiction to make changes to custody, support and alimony awards)(Supp.1999).
122 We conclude that remarriage and/or failure to make support payments cannot alone justify a modification. Regarding remarriage, there is simply no support for the proposition that remarriage is per se a substantial change of cireumstances. Absent explicit record support, it is hard to imagine that remarriage is unforeseen or not contemplated at the time of the divorce in virtually every case.7 Indeed, the divorce decree here explicitly recognized the possibility by providing that alimony would "continue for three years, or until [Sonia] remarries, or until terminated by statute, whichever shall occur first," (emphasis added) and seetion 30-3-5(8) provides that "any order of the court that a party pay alimony to a former spouse automatically terminates upon the remarriage or death of that former spouse." Utah Code Ann. § 80-8-5(8) (Supp.1999) (emphasis added). In addition, if Wayne failed to pay child support and alimony as ordered in the decree, Sonia's remedy is to enforce, not modify, the original decree when she has neither alleged nor shown a change in the position of the parties relevant to her need or Wayne's ability to pay.
*1791 23 We therefore hold that the trial court erred in modifying the divorce decree because there was no substantial change in cireumstances. Rather, the original decree continues in full effect.
%24 The court purported to allocate property between the parties by way of both modification of the original decree and pursuant to the second decree. While it is inappropriate to modify the original decree, the court is free to allocate property brought into and/or acquired during the common law marriage. The court must approach that allocation in accordance with our decision in Burt v. Burt, 799 P.2d 1166 (Utah Ct.App.1990).
[The court should first properly categorize the parties' property as part of the marital estate or as the separate property of one or the other. Each party is presumed to be entitled to all of his or her separate property and fifty percent of the marital property. But rather than simply enter such a decree, the court should then consider the existence of exceptional circumstances....
Id. at 1172; accord Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018, 1022 (Utah Ct.App.1993). Because the court allocated property pursuant to the decree dissolving the common law marriage without applying the Burt systematic approach or addressing exceptional cireum-stances, we reverse that part of the order and remand for further findings in accordance with Burt.
IV. Temporary Support Order
125 Wayne next argues that the court erred by imposing a temporary alimony and child support order because at that time there had been no determination that Wayne and Sonia entered a common law marriage. However, in addition to establishing her see-ond marriage to Wayne, Sonia also sought to modify the divorcee decree. In Wells v. Wells 871 P.2d 1086, 1040 (Utah Ct.App.1994), this court interpreted sections 30-3-3(3) and 30-8-5(8) and held that "trial courts have equitable powers to award temporary alimony on a petition to modify." Although the Wells court affirmed the denial of a modification petition that sought an increase in alimony, it determined that the trial court was able to make a temporary award and erred in failing to consider the petitioner's needs. Id. at 1040-41. Likewise here, Sonia sought to modify the divorce decree. Consequently, as explained in Wells, the court had the equitable authority to make a temporary order of support and reversal is not warranted on this basis.8
V, Alimony
126 Next, Wayne seeks reversal of the alimony award of $3,000 per month, arguing that the court made insufficient findings, and the findings were unsupported by sufficient evidence. "In determining whether to award alimony and in setting the amount, a trial court must consider the needs of the recipient spouse; the earning capacity of the recipient spouse; the ability of the obligor spouse to provide support; and, the length of the marriage." Rehn v. Rehn, 1999 UT App 41, 16, 974 P.2d 306; see Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(7)(a)()-(iv) (Supp.1999).9 "If these factors have been considered, ' "we will not disturb the trial court's alimony award unless such a serious inequity has resulted as to manifest a clear abuse of discretion."'" Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942, 946 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (omitting citations).
127 We first address the duration of the alimony award. The Utah Code provides, "Alimony may not be ordered for a duration longer than the number of years that the marriage existed unless, at any time prior to termination of alimony, the court *180finds extenuating civeumstances that justify the payment of alimony for a longer period of time." Utah Code Ann. § 80-8-5(7)(h) (Supp.1999); see also Rehn, 1999 UT App 041 at ¶ 14.
128 The trial court found that Sonia and Wayne entered a common law marriage that began on July 18, 1994 immediately following the entry of the divorce decree on that date. In Whyte v. Blair, 885 P.2d 791 (Utah 1994), the supreme court held that when a non-solemnized marriage is established under section 30-1-4.5, the actual duration of the relationship, predating such establishment, is recognized. See id. at 798-94. Hence, upon entry of the order establishing the marriage here, Wayne and Sonia were remarried on July 18, 1994, thereby terminating her entitlement to alimony under the first decree.10 Because the court made no finding of extenuating cireumstances, the time for which the court may order alimony is limited by section 80-8-5(7)(h) to the duration of the common law marriage, to wit: five years.11 Consequently, the court's findings were inadequate to support an alimony award for a period of sixteen years. We thus reverse its order in this respect and "remand for the entry of further findings addressing whether extenuating cireumstances exist as to satisfy section 80-8-5(7)(h)." Rehn, 1999 UT App 041 at ¶ 14.
129 We further conclude the court's additional required findings supporting the amount of the alimony award were sufficient. The court considered Sonia's needs, finding her reasonable monthly expenses to be $5,000 per month; her earning capacity, finding she was able to produce an income of $1,498 per month; and Wayne's ability to pay, finding he had the ability to produce over $10,000 and although his expenses were $10,500, a substantial portion related to a second home which was to be sold. Wayne has not shown these findings are clearly erroneous as unsupported by sufficient evidence.12 Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the $3,000 per month is an appropriate amount of alimony.
VI. Attorney Fees
180 Wayne seeks reversal of the attorney fees award as supported by insuffi*181cient findings. "The decision to award attorney fees and the amount thereof rests primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court. However the trial court must base the award on evidence of the receiving spouse's financial need, the payor spouse's ability to pay, and the reasonableness of the requested fees." Childs, 967 P.2d at 947 (citation omitted).
[ 31 Wayne does not dispute that the court made the appropriate findings regarding the reasonableness of the attorney fees, that Sonia was unable to pay the fees, or that the court found Wayne had "a substantial ability to earn an income." Instead, Wayne relies on his earlier argument that the court erred in finding that he had an income of $10,000 per month. Just as that argument failed because Wayne did not demonstrate the finding was clearly erroneous, so must this one. Consequently, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees.
VII. Contempt of Court
182 Finally, Wayne argues there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding of contempt of court. "The decision to hold a party in contempt of court rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court's action 'is so unreasonable as to be classified as capricious and arbitrary, or a clear abuse of discretion.'" Marsh v. Marsh, 1999 UT App 014, ¶ 8, 978 P.2d 988 (quoting Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 548 P.2d 288, 240 (Utah 1976)) cert. denied, 982 P.2d 89 (Utah 1999). "'To find contempt, the court must find from clear and convincing proof that the contemnor knew what was required, had the ability to comply, and willfully and knowingly failed and refused to do so.'" Id. at 110 (quoting Kungler v. O'Dell, 855 P.2d 270, 275 (Utah Ct.App.1998)).
133 Wayne argues the evidence was insufficient to show he had the ability to comply with the court's order-Le., that he had sufficient income to make payments in accordance with the court's temporary order. Again, Wayne merely reargues his view of the evidence. Nonetheless, the court's findings that he was able to comply with the temporary order because he had the ability to earn at least $10,000 per month and historically lived "far beyond that kind of income," is strongly supported by evidence adduced at the contempt hearing and at trial. Specifically, Wayne testified to an income from Omega Oil alone of $6,000 per month and he confirmed a pattern of characterizing income as loans, part of which he previously contributed to the support of Sonia and the children, showing an ability to earn a greater income. Consequently, we reject his argument that the court erred by finding Wayne in contempt of court.
CONCLUSION
[34 We conclude that although the trial court erred in finding the time restriction of section 30-1-4.5 unconstitutional, under the subsequent Utah Supreme Court decision In re Marriage of Gonzalez, it correctly determined that Sonia's action to establish a common law marriage was timely. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support the court's determination that Wayne and Sonia did in fact enter a common law marriage that commenced the same day as entry of the divorce decree in their first marriage.
"[ 35 Nonetheless, we further conclude that the court erred in determining there had been a substantial change of circumstances following entry of the first divoree decree. Remarriage and/or nonpayment of previously ordered support cannot alone constitute a substantial change of circumstances. Therefore, we reverse that part of the order allocating property by way of both modification of the original decree and pursuant to the second decree, and we remand for findings in accordance with the approach set forth in Burt. See Burt v. Burt, 799 P.2d at 1172. Additionally, pending resolution of the petition to modify, the court was within its discretion in entering a temporary support order.
1 36 Finally, because Wayne failed to demonstrate the court's factual findings were clearly erroneous, his challenges to the amount of alimony awarded, attorney fees, and contempt ruling necessarily fails. None*182theless, because Sonia entered a new (common law) marriage at the time the first divoree decree was entered, the remarriage terminated her right to alimony from the first marriage. Consequently, when awarding a divorce from the second (common law) marriage, the court erred by ordering alimony for a period that exceeded the duration of that second marriage.
137 Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's determination that there were changed cireumstances allowing modification of the first decree, remand for further findings regarding the property distribution, and limit the duration of alimony under the current decree to five years.
138 I CONCUR: Pamela T. GREENWOOD, Presiding Judge.. This reflects an amount substantially greater than the amounts he was ordered to pay under the decree.
. See LR.C. § 7703(1) (1999) ("[Thhe determination of whether an individual is married shall be 6 made as of the close of his taxable year....").
. In determining the appropriate amount then in arrears, in the divorce decree entered July 22, 1999, the court stated that the $5,000 per month alimony and child support award shall commence as of December 1998. Further, in the immediately following paragraph, the court ordered that this amount shall be "retroactive to the date of the first Order entered by Commissioner Dillon in this action."
. As Justice Russon explained:
[T}he trial court did not err in dismissing Gonzalez's petition for failure to meet the jurisdictional time limitation set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4.5. Justice Durham's opinion does not even attempt to read the statute on the basis of its plain language, but instead simply rewrites its provisions by attributing motives to the legislature. Although the requirement relating to conclusion, rather than commencement, of legal proceedings is unusual and could potentially raise constitutional concerns in certain hypothetical scenarios, this case is not one of them.
Gonzalez, 2000 UT 28 at ¶ 52 (Russon, J., dissenting).
. Section 30-1-4.5 sets out those factors necessary to determine the existence of a non-solemnized marriage:
A marriage which is not solemnized according to this chapter shall be legal and valid if a" court or administrative order establishes that it arises out of a contract between two consenting parties who:
(a) are capable of giving consent;
(b) are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of this chapter;
(c) have cohabited;
(d) mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations; and
(e) who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife.
Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4.5(1) (1998).
. For example, Wayne showed his consent to the common law marriage by filing a joint 1994 tax return, making statements to Dr. Hood at the parenting class, continuing financial support far above the level ordered in the original decree, maintaining joint accounts with Sonia, continuing cohabitation and sexual relations with Sonia, giving Sonia an anniversary card expressing his love and desire for another fifteen years together, and failing to tell anyone in the community about the divorce. Further, because Wayne's maintaining an apartment in Texas is consistent with his pre-divorce conduct and the demands of his work, it does not necessarily rebut the proposition that he cohabited with Sonia. Finally, there was testimony of neighbors showing Wayne and Sonia had a reputation in the community for being married.
. There has been no showing that remarriage to the former spouse should be treated materially different in this respect than remarriage to a third party.
. Because the amounts for retroactive child support and alimony based on the second divorce decree appear to be the same as the temporary order arrearages, we do not address the impact of the reversal of the order for modification on that amount.
. On May 3, 1999, approximately six months after the trial in this case, an amendment to section 30-3-5 became effective adding the further factors the court must consider. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(7)(a)(v)-(vii) (Supp.1999). Because these additional requirements were not in effect during the relevant period here, we do not consider them. See Wilde v. Wilde, 969 P.2d 438, 442-43 (Utah Ct.App.1998).
. The first decree provided, "The Plaintiff is hereby awarded the sum of not less than $1000.00 per month as alimony from Defendant, said alimony to continue for three years, or until the Plaintiff remarries, or until terminated by statute, whichever shall occur first." See also Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(8) (Supp.1999).
We agree with Sonia's position in her supplemental brief supporting the efficacy of the first decree that the circumstances surrounding the obtaining of the first decree do not amount to fraud on the court. The better reasoned analyses of the issue make a clear distinction between fraud on the court and other fraud or misrepresentation which may occur in the context of a proceeding.
"[The term [fraud on the court] as used in obtaining relief from judgment must be narrowly construed to embrace only that type of conduct which defiles the court itself, or fraud which is perpetrated by officers of the court so as to prevent the judicial system from functioning in the customary manner of deciding the cases presented in an impartial manner." Serzysko v. Chase Manhattan Bank (C.A.2, 1972), 461 F.2d 699; Konigsberg v. Security Natl. Bank (S.D.N.Y.1975), 56 F.R.D. 439; Armour and Company v. Nard (N.D.Iowa 1972), 56 FRD. 610; Lockwood v. Bowles (D.D.C.1969), 46 FRD. 625; Moores Federal Practice 504, 515 Paragraph 60.33 (1975). Examples of fraud on the court justifying relief from judgment would include such 'egregious misconduct' as bribery of a judge or jury, or fabrication of evidence by counsel. Pfizer, Inc., v. Intl. Rectifier Corp. (C.A.8, 1976), 538 F.2d 180, certiorari denied 429 U.S. 1040, 97 S.Ct. 738, 50 L.Ed.2d 751, or the prevention of an opposing party from fairly presenting his case. Keys v. Dunbar (C.A.9, 1969), 405 F.2d 955, certiorari denied 396 U.S. 880, 90 S.Ct. 158, 24 L.Ed.2d 138; see, generally, Restatement of Judgments, Sections 118-124 (1942).
Moore v. Moore, No. 3-82-19, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 12995, at *3-*4 (Ohio App.3d, June 23, 1983) (citation omitted); see also Davis v. Parrish, 131 Idaho 595, 961 P.2d 1198, 1200 (1998) ([Flraud upon the court will be found only in the presence of such tampering with the administration of justice as to suggest a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public." (quoting Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328, 612 P.2d 1175, 1181 (1980))); Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth, 547 N.W.2d 753, 761 (N.D.1996) Godin v. Godin, 168 Vt. 514, 725 A.2d 904, 908 (1998).
. The divorce decree terminating the common law marriage was entered on July 22, 1999.
. Again, Wayne fails to marshal the evidence to show the findings are clearly erroneous, and merely reargues his view of the evidence. See Lefavi, 994 P.2d 817, 2000 UT App 5 at ¶ 17.