Articles Posted in Spousal Support

In many marriages, one couple will act as the sole income earner while the other primarily takes care of the household and children. When a single-income couple divorces, the spouse that does not work outside of the home often experiences financial hardships. As such, the courts will often order the employed spouse to pay spousal and child support to the other party. The courts will consider numerous factors when evaluating whether spousal support obligations should be imposed, however, including the earning ability of the party seeking support. Recently, a California court discussed when it is appropriate to order a party to submit to a vocational examination in a divorce action. If you or your spouse intend to end your marriage, it is prudent to meet with a Bay Area divorce attorney to discuss how the decision may affect you financially.

Procedural History of the Case

The husband and wife married in 2001. They had four children during their marriage and separated in 2012. The husband held various jobs while the wife was a stay-at-home mother. The husband filed a petition for dissolution in 2013. The parties then engaged in extensive and contentious litigation. The wife filed a request for permanent spousal support, after which the court ordered her to submit to a vocational examination per the husband’s request. The wife objected to the order, but her objection was overruled. Following a hearing, she appealed.

Vocational Examinations in California Divorce Cases

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court ruling. In doing so, it explained that California law provides for both temporary spousal support and permanent spousal support. Temporary spousal support is designed to maintain the living conditions and standards of the parties pending trial and division of the assets. Permanent spousal support is intended to provide financial assistance as determined by the financial circumstances of the parties after their dissolution and the division of their community property. Continue Reading ›

When people divorce, it is not uncommon for one party to lack the financial means to provide for their basic needs and wants. As such, the court may order the other party to pay spousal support. In many cases, the courts do not intend spousal support to be a permanent obligation; instead, they indicate that such support should only endure until the receiving spouse becomes self-sufficient. If the receiving spouse fails to comply with a court’s warning to become self-supporting, though, it does not necessarily mean that the paying spouse’s support obligations will cease, as shown in a recent ruling issued by a California court. If you need assistance with a spousal support issue, it is advisable to talk to a Bay Area spousal support attorney as soon as possible.

History of the Case

It is reported that the husband and the wife divorced in 2001 after 17 years of marriage. During the dissolution proceedings, the husband agreed to pay the wife $900 per month in spousal support for an indefinite term. The court issued a judgment of dissolution in which it warned the wife that she was expected to become self-supporting.

Allegedly, in 2020, the husband filed a petition to terminate his spousal support obligation, arguing that he should no longer have to pay because the wife had failed to become self-supporting as she was directed to by the courts and because his health had deteriorated and his business had become less profitable. The court held a hearing on the issue, after which it reduced the husband’s spousal support obligation to $600 but declined to terminate it. The husband appealed. Continue Reading ›

In many marriages, one party will work outside of the home while the other takes care of the household and raises the children. If couples with unequal incomes divorce, the lesser-earning party will most likely be at a financial disadvantage, not only after the divorce is final but also while it is pending. In such cases, the courts will often find it appropriate to order the higher-earning spouse to pay temporary spousal support. While parties do not always agree with the terms of temporary spousal support orders, they can be difficult to modify, as illustrated in a recent opinion issued in a California divorce action. If you have questions about how divorce may impact your rights and obligations, it is smart to talk to a Bay Area divorce attorney promptly.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the parties married in 2001 and separated in 2020. They had two children during their marriage. The husband owned a real estate development company and other businesses; the wife did not work but stayed home with the children. In October 2020, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage that included a request for spousal support.

It is reported that the wife later submitted a document setting forth her support calculations, in which she requested approximately $30,000 per month in child and spousal support, which she deemed an interim request. Following a hearing, the court ordered the husband to pay $15,000 per month in temporary child and spousal support. The husband moved for a modification of the temporary support order, but the court denied his motion. He then filed a motion to reduce his support obligation, which was denied as well. He appealed. Continue Reading ›

When a couple divorces in California, their marital assets are subject to equal division. If the court finds that the distribution of property renders one spouse without adequate means for their support, they may award alimony as well. Additionally, California law permits the courts to grant temporary spousal support while a divorce is pending if they feel such support is warranted. Such awards will generally not be disturbed unless the objecting party shows the court committed an abuse of discretion, as demonstrated in a recent California ruling. If you want to end your marriage and have questions about your obligations or rights with regard to spousal support, it is smart to talk to a Bay Area divorce attorney as soon as possible.

Background of the Case

It is reported that the parties married in 1984; they had two children during their marriage that are now adults. They separated in the spring of 2010, and the husband filed a petition for dissolution later that year. The wife moved to Texas to live with her parents shortly thereafter. In 2021, the wife filed a request for temporary spousal support and attorneys’ fees. In support of her request, she filed documentation demonstrating that she earned approximately $1,400 per month while her husband earned over $12,000 per month.

Allegedly, the husband opposed the request and disputed the amount of his income. The court held a hearing after which it determined the husband’s monthly income to be approximately $9,800 per month. It granted the wife’s request, ordering the husband to pay the wife about $1,400 per month in temporary spousal support. The husband appealed. Continue Reading ›

In many cases in which a couple gets divorced if there is a disparity in income between the spouses, the court will grant spousal support to the lesser earning spouse. The intention of spousal support is to allow the spouse with a lower income to enjoy the same lifestyle he or she enjoyed during the marriage. Most spousal support obligations are not permanent, however, but can be modified upon a showing of a significant change in circumstances. Recently, a California appellate court analyzed what constitutes a sufficient showing to warrant a modification in a case in which the husband appealed the trial court’s denial of his request to terminate spousal support. If you wish to modify a spousal support obligation, it is in your best interest to consult a trusted California spousal support attorney regarding your burden of proof.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

Reportedly, the husband and the wife were married for over twenty years. They filed a stipulated agreement to dissolve their marriage in 2014, which included an obligation for the husband to pay spousal support to the wife in the amount of $2,500 each month. The support obligation was to be reviewed in two years. In 2017, the husband filed a request for an order terminating the support obligation due to the wife’s new job and increased monthly income. Additionally, the husband engaged an expert who stated that the wife would require $3,300 per month to maintain the marital standard of living.

It is alleged that the wife opposed the husband’s request, arguing there were numerous factors the court must consider prior to ruling on the request, and requested an evidentiary hearing on the matter.  A settlement conference was unproductive, and the matter was scheduled for a two-day trial. Prior to the trial, the wife filed a brief arguing that there had not been a substantial change in circumstances and that she could not maintain her standard of living on her income alone. The court ruled in favor of the wife based solely on the wife’s brief. The husband then appealed. On review, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling.

Continue Reading ›

In many divorce cases, the parties’ rights and obligations are delineated by a premarital agreement. Premarital agreements are typically enforced unless either party can show just cause for setting aside the agreement. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of California discussed the issue of what constitutes sufficient grounds for rendering a premarital agreement unenforceable due to unconscionability. If you entered into a premarital agreement prior to your marriage and are contemplating a divorce it is essential to speak with a trusted California divorce attorney regarding how the agreement may affect your rights.

Factual and Procedural Background

Reportedly, the husband and the wife, who are both architects, began corresponding in 1995, when the wife lived in Russia, and the husband lived in the United States. Later that year, the wife began working as an architect in Houston. She completed all of her architectural drafting in English. In the winter of 1995, the wife moved to California and became pregnant with the husband’s child. She gave birth to a daughter in September 1996. After the birth of her daughter, the wife wished to remain in the United States.

It is alleged that the couple decided to wed, but the husband stated he wished to enter into a premarital agreement prior to getting married. Specifically, the husband was concerned about having to pay spousal support if he and the wife divorced, and about the wife leaving the country and gaining rights to his property. The husband and the wife met with a paralegal and signed a boilerplate premarital agreement in October 1996. The paralegal advised the couple that the agreement had been drafted by an attorney and had them execute a document acknowledging that she was not giving them legal advice. In part, the agreement stated that in the event of a divorce, neither party would owe the other party spousal support. Continue Reading ›

If you intend to seek a divorce, it is essential that you retain an attorney who is knowledgeable in drafting settlement agreements, to avoid unknowingly agreeing to terms that may put you in an unfavorable position in the future. Even if an agreement seems appropriate under your current circumstances, it is important to consider how any change in circumstances could affect your obligations and rights under the agreement. The failure to properly allow for modifications in your favor in the future can result in an increase in financial obligations.

A California Court of Appeals recently held that a marital settlement agreement that required a substantial increase in a wife’s support obligation had to be followed despite a material change in circumstances.  If you wish to dissolve your marriage, it is in your best interest to consult a California divorce attorney as soon as possible, to assist you in seeking a settlement agreement that protects your rights now and in the future.

Facts Regarding the Marriage and Separation

Reportedly, husband and wife were married for over 18 years and had two children together. They separated in 2012 and in 2014 dissolved their marriage. A marriage settlement agreement (MSA) and post-judgment stipulation (PJS) were incorporated into the terms of the court’s order dissolving their marriage.  The MSA provided that the wife would pay the husband $850 in monthly spousal support, plus 10% of any income she earned per year in excess of $180,000. The MSA also provided that either party could petition the court to modify the spousal support, after which the court would be obligated to consider the income of the parties at the time of the separation. Additionally, the wife agreed to notify the husband if she changed jobs. The PJS subsequently reduced the amount of support payments owed by wife on a sliding scale.

Continue Reading ›