Richmond Order in California Family Law

Explanation: A Richmond Order is a type of spousal support arrangement in California that sets a specific future date when support will end unless the supported spouse takes action to extend it. In practical terms, the court orders that spousal support will automatically terminate on a given date (along with the court’s jurisdiction over spousal support) unless, before that date arrives, the supported spouse files a motion to continue the support and shows good cause for the extension. This means the supported spouse is essentially put on notice that they must become self-supporting by the end date or be prepared to prove why they still need financial help at that time. A Richmond Order serves as a middle ground between an open-ended spousal support order and a hard cutoff: it encourages the supported party to strive for financial independence within a reasonable time frame, yet it also provides a safety net in case things do not go as expected (by allowing an opportunity to ask the court for more time if necessary).

Background: The term “Richmond Order” comes from the case In re Marriage of Richmond (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 352, where a California Court of Appeal upheld a spousal support order that would terminate on a specified date unless the supported spouse showed good cause to extend it before that date. This approach was important because it addressed a concern raised by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Morrison (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437 – namely, that after a lengthy marriage, it could be unfair to “cut off” spousal support at a future date unless there was evidence the supported spouse would be able to meet his or her own financial needs by that time. The Richmond Order concept provided a solution by allowing the court to set an end date for support to encourage self-sufficiency, while still retaining jurisdiction (power) to extend support if the supported spouse had not become self-supporting as expected by that date.

In the years since Richmond, California courts have frequently used Richmond Orders in spousal support cases. For example, in In re Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 645, the Court of Appeal noted that a “Richmond” style order is often an appropriate way to handle spousal support in typical divorce cases because it motivates the supported spouse to become self-supporting and places the burden on that spouse to demonstrate the need for continued support. However, courts also make it clear that any time limit placed on support must be reasonable and based on the evidence – not an arbitrary or purely hopeful date. In other words, the deadline for termination should reflect a timeframe by which the supported spouse could likely become self-sufficient, given the circumstances (education, work skills, job market, health, etc.). Richmond Orders might not be suitable in absolutely every case (for instance, they may be inappropriate in an extremely short marriage where only very brief support is needed, in an extremely long marriage where truly permanent support is justified, or if the supported spouse is physically unable to ever become self-supporting due to age or disability). But in many standard situations, courts favor Richmond Orders as a fair way to balance the goal of encouraging independence with the need to avoid unfairly cutting off support.

Example Scenario: Imagine a divorcing couple where the higher-earning husband is required to pay spousal support to the wife. Suppose the wife is finishing a professional degree and is expected to be able to work full-time in a few years. In this situation, a judge might issue a Richmond Order specifying that the husband will pay spousal support for five more years, after which the support will end. The order would state that spousal support is set to terminate in five years unless before that date the wife (as the supported spouse) files a request to extend the support and shows good reason (good cause) why continued support is necessary at that time.

With such an order in place, the wife knows she is expected to become self-supporting by the five-year mark. (Often the court will also give a “Gavron warning” — named after In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 705 — which is a formal warning advising the supported spouse to make diligent efforts toward becoming self-sufficient by the end of the support period.) Meanwhile, the husband can plan on the support payments stopping after five years if all goes as expected. If the wife does nothing before the five-year deadline, the spousal support will simply end as scheduled, and the court’s jurisdiction to order further support will lapse (meaning the issue of spousal support is closed at that point). However, if despite her reasonable efforts the wife encounters unexpected difficulties — for example, if an unforeseen health problem or a poor job market prevents her from achieving self-support by that time — she can file a motion before the five years are up to ask the court to extend the support. If she can demonstrate to the judge that her need for support is still valid due to circumstances beyond what was anticipated (often referred to as showing “good cause” or sometimes “unrealized expectations”), the court can decide to continue spousal support for a longer period instead of cutting it off. In this way, a Richmond Order gives the supported spouse both an incentive to become independent and a contingency plan if legitimate hurdles delay that independence, while giving the paying spouse a light at the end of the tunnel rather than an indefinite obligation.