What is a modification of spousal support?

Useful Rulings on Modification of Spousal Support

Rulings on Modification of Spousal Support

1-25 of 234 results

SHEILA A. CRUTHIRDS AND R. CURTIS CRUTHIRDS

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.

  • Hearing

JOIE MARIA SMITH AND THOMAS CHARLES SMITH

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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JUDY CHRISTINE JOHNSON AND CRAIG GORDON JOHNSON

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.

  • Hearing

RACHEL KAREN TEPLANSKY WELLMAN AND JAMES CAINE WELLMAN

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).

  • Hearing

JUDY CHRISTINE JOHNSON AND CRAIG GORDON JOHNSON

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.

  • Hearing

DAVE PADEN AND KIMBERLY PADEN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JAMES CORNELL AND MARTHA CORNELL

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.

  • Hearing

SAUNDERS AND SAUNDERS

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.

  • Hearing

DANYLLI S. LEMUS AND JOSEPH M. LEMUS

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.

  • Hearing

PATRICIA JACKSON AND MICHAEL JACKSON

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.

  • Hearing

KELLY A. KITE AND LAWRENCE M. KITE, JR.

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.

  • Hearing

KIMBERLY HALABURKA AND DAVID M OCOMO

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.

  • Hearing

IN RE THE MATTER OF DENNIS G. FANNING

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.

  • Hearing

RICHARD FISCHER AND JUDITH FISCHER

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].

  • Hearing

IN RE THE MATTER OF DENNIS G. FANNING

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.

  • Hearing

JEFF RYNDERS AND KATHRYN RYNDERS

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.

  • Hearing

KATHLEEN MARRISON BANKS AND GARY BANKS

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.

  • Hearing

GABRIELLE LUNDY BOUCHER AND JEROME H P BOUCHER, JR

investment principal, should be available to pay spousal support.

  • Hearing

KATHARINE W. LAUER AND GARY I. LAUER

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.

  • Hearing

PATRICK C. HUGLIN AND PATRICIA L. HUGLIN

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.

  • Hearing

SHIPSEY V. SHIPSEY

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.

  • Hearing

MAR. OF ULLRICH

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.

  • Hearing

KELLY A. KITE AND LAWRENCE M. KITE, JR.

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.

  • Hearing

KRISTA REARDON AND DAVID REARDON

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.”

  • Hearing

JUDY JOHNSON AND CRAIG JOHNSON

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

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.