Modification of Spousal Support in California: A Case Analysis

The purpose of this post is to help you understand what type of analysis a court uses in determining whether a modification of spousal support is warranted.  Let’s use an example.

I’m using the following appeals case of (In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1225) as the example of how the courts apply law to a factual situation.  This case is a good example of spousal support because the couple has no children.  Therefore, you get a cleaner look on how spousal support law works. 

Here are the facts:  Greg and Michelle Shaughnessy were married in November of 1979 and were separated in March 1995.  Michelle had been receiving spousal support from 1995 to about 2003 when Greg filed for divorce.  The court ordered Greg to pay $2,000 per month in spousal support to Michelle.  In a 2003 judgment the court stated the following regarding spousal support:

"1. The court finds that as of the date of separation the parties enjoyed an upper middle class lifestyle as evidenced by the fact that the parties traveled frequently and they owned two pieces of property.

"2. The court finds that [Michelle's] earning capacity is not sufficient to meet her needs for the following reasons:

"a. [Michelle] does not possess marketable employment skills for the current job market. [Michelle] has a journalism degree, however, she has been a florist during most of the marriage. [Michelle] needs to be retrained and obtain computer skills.

"b. [Greg] earns a high wage and has the ability to pay a reasonable spousal support award.

"c. Based on [Michelle's] needs as established during the marriage [Michelle]'s income and earning capacity are insufficient to meet her needs. [Michelle's] expenses are high as currently presented but even if the amount was reduced to a reasonable amount, [Michelle] still needs spousal support.

"d. [Michelle] has significant separate property assets that produce income for the benefit of [Michelle]. The rate of return on [Michelle's] investments is not enough to sustain her life expectancy since [Michelle] is still a young woman.

"e. The marriage was of long duration, lasting more than fifteen years. The support order is presumed to be open ended in marriages of long duration.

"f. On the issue of health, the court finds there was significant evidence of [Michelle's] depression, however, this factor will not interfere with [Michelle's] ability to obtain employment. [Michelle] is being treated for a benign tumor with medication. The court is unable to determine the effect of that medical condition on [Michelle] in the future and on the issue of ongoing health insurance for [Michelle]. [Greg] appears to be in good health.

"g. The court finds the evidence regarding the issue of domestic violence by [Michelle] against [Greg] to be situational. There was no documentation at the time of the alleged domestic violence.

"h. There are no other tax consequences to the parties except those related to the sale of the parties' rental property. The tax consequences are considered by the court in determining the spousal support award.

"i. The balance of hardships weigh in favor of [Michelle].

"j. The requirement that parties should be self-supporting after one-half the length of the marriage does not apply to a marriage of long duration. [Michelle] began to realize one year ago she needs marketable skills and needs to look at retraining options."

"3. [Greg] will pay $2,000 per month in spousal support to [Michelle] effective January 1, 2003. [Greg] will receive credit for any amount of support he paid to [Michelle] in the months of January and February 2003.

"4. The court retains jurisdiction on the matter of spousal support."

(In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal. App.4th 1225,1232-33.)  This is a type of order you might see from a California Family Law Judge when analyzing the California Family Code §4320 factors.

In order for there to be a modification of spousal support, there must be a material change in circumstances.  Also, important in this case is Cal. Fam. Code § 4320(l) “The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time. Except in the case of a marriage of long duration as described in Section 4336,[ fn. 3 ] a 'reasonable period of time' for purposes of this section generally shall be one-half the length of the marriage. However, nothing in this section is intended to limit the court's discretion to order support for a greater or lesser length of time, based on any of the other factors listed in this section, Section 4336, and the circumstances of the parties.” Emphasis added.

Greg filed with the court an OSC to modify spousal support in 2003 and it wasn’t heard until 2005.  He argued that the spousal support be reduced from $2,000.00 to $1,000 because the change in circumstances was that Michelle failed to diligently become self-supporting as required by Cal. Fam. Code §4320(l) above.  Greg paid eight years of spousal support which was more than one-half the time of the marriage and the court agreed with him.  Michelle had a degree in journalism, and worked as a florist during the marriage.  Michelle was supposed to receive computer training in order to make her skills marketable and make her self-supporting.   The trial court and the appeals court agreed with Greg that the material change in circumstances is the failure to diligently become self-sufficient. 

Let’s face it, Michelle may have been “milking it.”  In these types of situations, the court should grant a request for spousal support modification.

    

Castro Valley Spousal Support Attorney Pleasanton Spousal Support Attorney San Jose Spousal Support Attorney San Mateo Spousal Support Attorney

Castro Valley Spousal Support Lawyer Pleasanton Spousal Support Lawyer San Jose Spousal Support Lawyer San Mateo Spousal Support Lawyer