A spousal support order may be modified or terminated at any time as the Court determines to be necessary. Fam. C. §§ 3651(a), 3651(e) (statute applies whether or not support is based on agreement of parties). In addition, the Court has authority to make any modification retroactive to the date of filing the within motion. Fam. C. § 4333.
In determining whether a material change in circumstances had occurred necessary to support a modification of Respondent’s spousal support obligation, the court must give effect to Respondent’s and Petitioner’s intent and reasonable expectations as expressed in the agreement. In re Marriage of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1476 (“A material change of circumstances may be in the form of unrealized expectations.” In re Marriage of Beust (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 24, 29.)
A family law court may not find a change of circumstances, however, in the reconsideration of a circumstance which has not changed since the previous order. In re Marriage Farrell (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 695, 703. “Circumstances accounted for in the previous order cannot constitute a change of circumstances. Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law, The Rutter Group 1999 ¶ 17:147...” In re Marriage of Lautsbaugh (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1133. “There is authority that the parties have the power to decide whether a particular event will or will not be deemed a material change of circumstances for purposes of modification of a support order.” In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240, 247.
An order providing for contingent termination of spousal support on a specific date unless, before that time, the supported spouse brings a motion to modify for good cause is denominated a Richmond order after the decision of In re Marriage of Richmond (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 352.
The order in Richmond provided that the “obligation for spousal support shall continue through the month of September 1981, at which time spousal support shall forever terminate and the jurisdiction of this Court over the issue of spousal support shall terminate, unless prior to September 30, 1981, [the supported spouse] makes a showing of good cause to extend spousal support beyond that date.” Id. at 354. In upholding the order, the appellate court observed: “Limiting the duration of support so that both parties can develop their own lives, free from obligations to each other, is a commendable [judicial] goal.” In re Marriage of Morrison (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437, 452
"The effect of a ‘Richmond’ order is to tell each spouse that the supported spouse has a specified period of time to become self-supporting, after which the obligation of the supporting spouse will cease.... A ‘Richmond’ order psychologically prepares the supported spouse for the time when he or she must be self-supporting. It also places the burden of showing good cause for a change in the order upon the one who is most able to exercise the control necessary to meet the expectations the trial judge had in making the order." In re Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 645, 665-666.
In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances:
Fam. C. § 4320
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support Respondent’s [“Curtis”] Request for Order for Modification of Spousal Support payable by him to Petitioner [Sheila”]. Attorneys: Channe Coles for Petitioner; Renee Fairbanks for Respondent. Rulings 1. The Court finds Curtis’ declarations and Points and Authorities significantly more persuasive than Sheila’s. Curtis has clearl...
..support obligation would terminate. 3. The Court finds that spousal support should continue at the present amount of $2,500 per month but shall terminate on April 30, 2021. 4. The amount and duration of monthly spousal support payable by Curtis to Sheila shall be non-modifiable, and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any request from Sheila or Curtis, at any time or under any circumst...
Nature of Proceedings: Request for Order to Modify Spousal Support The court has reviewed Respondent’s Request for Order for Modification of Spousal Support, Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration to Request for Order and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all related and supporting documents, the transcript of the September 20, 2016 hearing, as well as the post-hearing briefs and submissions. R...
..determining whether a material change in circumstances had occurred necessary to support a modification of Respondent’s spousal support obligation, the court must give effect to Respondent’s and Petitioner’s intent and reasonable expectations as expressed in the agreement. (Marriage of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1476; Marriage of Anninger (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 230, 237-238.) Aft...
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Spousal Support Craig’s request to modify spousal support Ruling: Craig’s motion is DENIED; sanctions will be paid by Craig to Judy of $111 no later than March 15, 2018. Analysis The Court made very extensive “Rulings” on this case just last October on 10/31/17; in summary the Court ruled: 1. Spousal support. Spousal support is reduced to jurisdictional spousal...
..o at this time on this record. There is no child support modification pending with this simplified modification of spousal support motion. If the issue of Social Security payments related to a Social Security right were to be decided by this Court, the Court would need to have much more specific information about what the facts are that generates and mandates such payments, and would additionally...
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support Father’s RFO Attorneys Larry Laborde for Petitioner (“wife”) Channe Coles for Respondent (“husband”) Rulings: A. The Court intends to GRANT the bifurcation of marriage; a bifurcated judgment of marriage “form” was submitted to the Court along with a “form” Notice of Entry of Judgment. At the last hearing there were no ap...
..ly husband, not wife, MUST GIVE the indemnities. B. Husband’s request to reduce spousal support, to any amount, at this time is DENIED; we will address that issue at trial. C. Trial is set for November 7, 2017, at 11:30 am; the court will reserve two days. At that time the Court will address the §4320 issues. This case has languished vastly too long. D. Wife is given a Work Hardening Order -...
Nature of Proceedings: RFO This is a RFO seeking modification of child support and spousal support; also seeks reimbursement of child-related expenses. David’s RFO The RFO was filed by David on March 2, 2015; requests modification of child support for Elizabeth (17) DOB 12/6/97; seeks to modify the June 7, 2011, order by reducing child support and to step down spousal support; was married in 19...
..rked and had the ability to do so again but the custody and care of their young daughters was the concern in determining the financial arrangements regarding support; support was $2,950 divided $1,800 child support and $1,150 in spousal support; they envisioned that when the children were older, child support would decrease and would revisit spousal support; additionally made an unequal division o...
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Child Support/Spousal Support/Dependency Exemption Req. for Order: Modification Child Support/Spousal Support/Dependency Exemption Attorneys: Marlea Jarrette for Petitioner (“mother”); Respondent in pro per (“father”) Ruling: 1. Father’s child support payable to mother is $0. 2. Mother’s child support payable to father is $0. The Court’s Di...
..dency exemptions in the future no later than 9/1/18; (a true and correct copy of the partially completed IRS Form 8332, ready for signing is attached to his papers). 5. Mother’s request to impute income to father because he lives with his mother is denied (Marriage of Schulze (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 519 [free rent is income only when it is a benefit of employment]). Analysis: Father’s RFO On 6/...
1-25 of 234 results
He filed Points and Authorities to buttress his request; contends that a spousal support order may be modified or terminated at any time as the Court determines to be necessary. (Fam. C. §§ 3651(a), 3651(e) [statute applies whether or not support is based on agreement of parties].) In addition, the Court has authority to make any modification retroactive to the date of filing the within motion. (Fam.
The basis for a modification of temporary spousal support is a change of circumstances. Marriage of Freitas (2012) 209 CA4th 1055, 1068. In considering a modification of temporary spousal support, the Court is not obligated to consider and weigh the factors set forth in Family Code section 4320. The sole factors to be considered are the supported spouse’s needs and the supporting spouse’s ability to pay. Marriage of Tong and Samson (2011) 197 CA4th 23, 30.
Santa Barbara County, CA
Those orders are directed by guidelines established by the legislature and the analysis is totally different than any analysis for spousal support pursuant to Family Code section 4320.
The Case Management Conference set for 10/1/19 is advanced to 9/24/19 at 10:30 am; “the Trial” is set for 1/7/2020 at 11:30 am in this Department; trial briefs due one week in advance; at trial one of the issues will be the duration of spousal support; the litigants are also reminded that “permanent” spousal support” is decided, at trial, on a different analysis (see Family Code section 4320).
Spousal support. Spousal support is reduced to jurisdictional spousal support commencing November 1, 2017. This has been a long marriage and the Court will not burn its bridges and “terminate” spousal support as requested by Craig. The Court’s Family Code Section 4320 analysis supporting this decision is set out below. 2. Social Security payment modification. The Court will not intervene in the issue of the Social Security payments made to Judy of apparently $1,300/mo at this time on this record.
In the parties’ Judgment of 5/29/2015, Dave was ordered to pay Kimberly Spousal Support of $1,800 per month. In December of 2019, Dave filed a Request for Modification of Spousal Support claiming that his income had been drastically reduced to minimum wage and asking for a zero spousal support Order. The Court set Dave’s Support Order at zero on 2/26/2020, retroactive to 12/1/2019 and set the matter for review, which is now before the Court Dave’s financial situation has greatly improved.
Santa Barbara County, CA
The law requires the Court to ignore guideliner or DissoMaster calculations when addressing anything other than temporary spousal support and instead mandates that the Court compute spousal support by using Family Code Section 4320 explicitly. The Court gleans from the information that father has submitted for the 12 months prior to 6/24/13 that he averaged $4,000 per month.
David’s request for a step-down reduction in spousal support is granted as set out below. 2. There has and will continue to be material and substantial changes of circumstances here. See paragraph 13 for section 4320 analysis. 3.
Spousal support shall remain at $250 per month until it is modified or terminated pursuant to statute and case law. The Court’s Family Code section 4320 analysis is found below. 4. The dependency exemptions for the minor children are awarded to father.
The Court is not inclined to set spousal support on the guideline now and to have to redo it in 4-6 months based upon section 4320. Setting guideline support and taking 3 + days for a hearing now and having a 4+ day (maybe 8 day) trial in 5 months makes little or no sense in light of the very little courtroom time I have available for these important matters. 2.
Wife is given a Work Hardening Order - The recipient of spousal support should make reasonable efforts to assist in providing for her support needs, taking into account the particular circumstances considered by the court pursuant to section 4320. [Family code section 4330; see Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 705.
Mother filed her Points and Authorities; contends father is seeking to retroactively modify child support arrearages; relies on Fam Code section 3651(c); Marriage of Tavares (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 620 at 625; Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M (2007) 153 Cal.
As to the request to award her a community income spousal support order in the amount of all of her income, all of Dennis' income, all of the non-exempt assets on Exhibit B and the income derived from those assets, grant. (Fam. C. §4320) The court dispenses with bond for good cause shown.
Ventura County, CA
RFO On 4/26 Richard filed his RFO; seeks to terminate his obligation to pay spousal to Judith effective May 1, 2017; underlying Order was entered on March 12, 1997; the Court ordered $ 5,500 per month for spousal support; he has filed the necessary section 4320 document related to a modification of Spousal Support; set hearing for May 30 [it was continued by stipulation to July 11].
Grant the request to award Lourdes Fanning a community income spousal support order in the amount of all of her income, all of Dennis' income, all of the non-exempt assets on Exhibit B and the income derived from those assets. (Fam. C. §4320) The court dispenses with bond for good cause shown.
Ventura County, CA
Father is given a work hardening order - Family code section 4330 – The recipient of spousal support should make reasonable efforts to assist in providing for his support needs, taking into account the particular circumstances considered by the Court pursuant to section 4320. Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 705.
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support Husband’s RFO for modification of Spousal support Attorneys Susanna V. Pullen for Petitioner Tracey Rangel Cruz for Respondent Rulings: 1. Use of the DissoMaster. The Court has ignored the DissoMaster calculations submitted by Kathleen. Gary’s objection filed 9/28/17 is well taken. The Court cannot use it even for a reference point. 2. Spousal support modification.
investment principal, should be available to pay spousal support.
support at the time of the parties’ agreement and Judgment, and overlooks the fact that this Court is required to consider all Family Code Section 4320 factors when considering a support modification.
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support Petitioner’s Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support Attorneys: Petitioner (Patrick”) in pro per; Vanessa Kirker Wright for Respondent (“Patricia”) Ruling: The request for modification is DENIED.
Nature of Proceedings: Request for Order to Modify Spousal Support The court has reviewed Respondent’s Request for Order for Modification of Spousal Support, Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration to Request for Order and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all related and supporting documents, the transcript of the September 20, 2016 hearing, as well as the post-hearing briefs and submissions. Respondent’s unopposed request for judicial notice filed December 30, 2016, is granted.
Santa Barbara County, CA
In reviewing respondent’s present modification request for an increase to $1500 per month in spousal support, the court finds that petitioner fails to allege a change in circumstances, other than she needs the additional support to pay for her necessities. Obviously, she has depended on the additional monthly payment of arrearages over the past several years to supplement her income. Yet, this fact is not a change of circumstance that would justify additional spousal support.
Plumas County, CA
Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support/Status Only Judgment Request for Order Modification Spousal Support and a Status Only Judgment Rulings: Continued to 8/22/17 pursuant to a stipulation filed 7/7/17; the Court signed the stipulation. Analysis: The Petition for Dissolution was filed in 2012; response filed in 8/2012; retirement plan [Operating Engineers Pension Trust] joined and appeared in 2012; last activity in 5/2013.
Father’s Points and Authorities Father accurately reports that when the Court has jurisdiction to award spousal support, a spousal support modification may be granted “only if the party seeking the modification shows a material change of circumstances since the most recent order.”
Father’s request that there be a modification of spousal support is granted; spousal support is required to be calculated based upon an evaluation of the Family Code section 4320 factors which I set out below in detail; father’s spousal support obligation commencing November 1, 2013, is $2,500/mo; father’s request that this modification is applicable until the termination date of 11/17 is ignored as there may be many things that occur between now and then that may require changes in the amount; spousal support
Please wait a moment while we load this page.