California Family Law Concept: Stallworth Order

Concept: Stallworth Order

Citation: In re Marriage of Stallworth (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 742 (Cal. Ct. App.) – Spousal support order without a fixed termination date; see also Fam. Code § 4336 (court retains spousal support jurisdiction indefinitely for marriages of long duration, generally 10+ years).

Explanation: A Stallworth Order refers to a spousal support order that has no predetermined end date, meaning support continues “until further order of the court” (or until a standard terminating event like the supported spouse’s remarriage or the death of either party). In practical terms, this is an open-ended spousal support arrangement often used in long-term marriages or in situations where it’s uncertain when, if ever, the supported spouse will become self-sufficient. The concept comes from In re Marriage of Stallworth, where the appellate court upheld a support order with no fixed termination date, ruling that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to decline to set a cutoff or timeline for the supported spouse to become employed. A Stallworth Order contrasts with a Richmond Order – whereas a Richmond Order sets a future date for support to step down or end unless the supported spouse shows good cause to extend it, a Stallworth Order keeps support indefinite and places no automatic deadline on the payments. In essence, a Stallworth Order leaves the burden on the supporting spouse to later petition the court for any reduction or termination (upon a material change in circumstances), as opposed to a Richmond Order which places the onus on the supported spouse to seek an extension before support ends. This approach can complement a Richmond Order in that courts have flexibility: they may choose a Stallworth-style order in cases where an arbitrary end date would be unfair or impractical, such as very long marriages or when the supported spouse’s future earning capacity is unclear, whereas a Richmond Order is used to encourage the supported party to become self-supporting by a set time.

Examples:

Long-Term Marriage Scenario: After a 25-year marriage, a 60-year-old wife who spent most of the marriage as a homemaker is awarded spousal support. The court issues a Stallworth Order for indefinite support, recognizing the marriage’s long duration and her limited recent work experience. There is no fixed end date for support – it will continue until either party’s circumstances change significantly or a terminating event (death/remarriage) occurs. This gives the supported spouse security, while allowing the supporting spouse to later request a modification or termination if, for example, the supported spouse becomes self-supporting or circumstances otherwise change.
Health/Ability Consideration: In a divorce, the husband must pay spousal support to his ex-wife who has a chronic health condition and cannot be expected to achieve full-time employment in the near future. The court orders support “until further order,” a Stallworth-type arrangement, because setting a specific cutoff date wouldn’t be appropriate given her condition. For instance, rather than ordering “support for two years and then terminating unless extended” (as a Richmond Order might), the court leaves the order open-ended. This means the husband will continue paying support indefinitely, subject to future modification, acknowledging that the wife’s ability to become self-supporting is uncertain. If her condition improves or she later gains employment, the husband can ask the court to adjust or end the support at that time.

Cases:

In re Marriage of Morrison (1978) – A landmark California Supreme Court case that set the stage for Stallworth Orders. In Morrison, the Supreme Court held that in a long-duration marriage, it can be an abuse of discretion for a trial court to set a fixed termination date for spousal support without retaining the ability to extend it. The court emphasized that after a lengthy marriage, support should not automatically end on an arbitrary date unless there is evidence the supported spouse will be self-sufficient by that time. This case established the principle that the default in long marriages is to retain jurisdiction over spousal support indefinitely, placing the burden on the party seeking to terminate support to prove why an absolute end date is justified.
In re Marriage of Richmond (1980) – This California Court of Appeal decision introduced what is now known as a “Richmond Order.” In Richmond, the court approved a spousal support order that would terminate on a specified future date unless the supported spouse filed a motion before that date to extend support, showing good cause. The Richmond case established that trial courts have authority to set a contingent termination of support – effectively a future cutoff date – while retaining jurisdiction to continue support if circumstances warrant. This approach was deemed a reasonable compromise to encourage the supported spouse’s self-sufficiency. In the context of Stallworth, a Richmond Order is the alternative approach: Richmond places the burden on the supported spouse to justify continued support (thereby motivating that spouse to become self-supporting), whereas a Stallworth Order leaves support open-ended and puts the onus on the payor to seek changes later. Together, these cases outline two complementary tools for judges in structuring spousal support orders.
In re Marriage of Stallworth (1987) – The defining case for Stallworth Orders. Here, the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment that ordered spousal support payable “until remarriage, death, or further order” with no fixed end date. The supporting husband argued the court should have set a termination date or at least a schedule for the wife to become employed, but the appellate court disagreed. It held that the trial court has broad discretion in setting the duration of spousal support and that refusing to impose a time limit or “prove self-sufficiency by X date” was not an abuse of discretion (even if, in the court’s words, under the facts “it would be preferable” to encourage a plan for employment). This case solidified that California courts may choose not to impose a cutoff, especially in a marriage of significant length (here about 14½ years) and where the supported spouse’s future earning capacity was uncertain. Stallworth underscores that open-ended support orders are permissible and often appropriate in certain cases.
In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) – This case introduced the concept of a “Gavron Warning,” which is closely related to how Stallworth or Richmond Orders operate. In Gavron, the Court of Appeal ruled that if a court expects a supported spouse to become self-supporting and is contemplating a future reduction or termination of support, the supported spouse must be given a fair warning of that expectation. The wife in Gavron had her support reduced to zero after several years, but she had never been explicitly told she was expected to become self-sufficient; the court held it was unfair to cut off support without such notice. Now, a Gavron Warning (typically an order or admonishment stating that the supported party must make good-faith efforts to become self-supporting) is often issued, especially in cases headed toward a Richmond Order. This case complements the Stallworth principle by highlighting that when no fixed end date is set (Stallworth Order), the supported spouse isn’t under an immediate judicial deadline, whereas if the court does plan to end support at a future date, it should first warn the spouse (per Gavron) to avoid a due-process problem. Essentially, Gavron ensures that supported spouses are not ambushed by a termination of support and ties into the court’s considerations when deciding between an indefinite Stallworth Order and a time-limited approach.
In re Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun (1987) – Another Court of Appeal case in the same era, which, while primarily about support modification, provided insight relevant to Stallworth vs. Richmond orders. In Prietsch, the court noted that a Richmond-type order places the responsibility on the supported spouse to take action to extend support because that spouse is in the best position to control the factors (like obtaining employment or education) that would justify continuing support. This observation by the court explains the rationale behind Richmond Orders and, by contrast, highlights the effect of a Stallworth Order. If a court issues a Stallworth (indefinite) support order, it implies the burden remains on the supporting spouse to show a change in circumstances to reduce or terminate support later. Prietsch & Calhoun thus reinforces how California courts view the “burden of proof” dynamic: a Richmond Order shifts that burden to the supported party (to prove why support should go on), whereas a Stallworth Order keeps support in place until the payor can show it should change. This case helped clarify and bolster the policy considerations judges weigh when choosing an open-ended support order versus a stepped or terminating one.

Checklist: When courts consider issuing a Stallworth Order (open-ended spousal support), they typically evaluate several key factors and conditions before deciding that an indefinite order is appropriate. Important considerations include:

Length of the Marriage: Is the marriage of long duration? Marriages lasting 10 years or more are considered “lengthy” under California law (Fam. Code § 4336). In long-term marriages, courts are more inclined to reserve jurisdiction indefinitely and avoid setting a fixed termination date for support, because the law presumes that ongoing support may be needed absent evidence to the contrary.
Supported Spouse’s Earning Capacity and Timeframe for Self-Sufficiency: Can the supported spouse become self-supporting, and how long might that realistically take? If the supported party has been out of the workforce for many years, has limited job skills, or would require substantial education or training to re-enter the job market, the court may opt for a Stallworth Order. The less certain or more prolonged the rehabilitation period, the more sense it makes not to impose a hard end date. On the other hand, if evidence shows the supported spouse can become self-sufficient relatively soon (e.g., they have marketable skills or are already working part-time), the court might lean toward a fixed timeline or a Richmond Order instead.
Age and Health of the Supported Spouse: The court looks at whether the supported party’s age or health conditions affect their ability to work. For example, an older spouse nearing retirement age, or one suffering from significant health issues or disabilities, may never become fully self-supporting. In such cases, an indefinite support order is often justified. A younger, healthy spouse might be expected to eventually rejoin the workforce, which could factor against an indefinite order (instead prompting a transitional support plan).
Contributions to the Marriage and Domestic Duties: Judges consider if the supported spouse sacrificed career opportunities to devote time to domestic responsibilities (raising children, maintaining the home, supporting the other spouse’s career). If so, there is a recognition that it may be harder for that spouse to immediately gain financial independence after divorce. A Stallworth Order acknowledges this by providing sustained support, especially when the marriage was long and the homemaker spouse’s opportunities for building a career were foregone.
Child Care or Other Dependents: If the supported spouse has primary custody of young children or is caring for a child or family member with special needs, the court will consider how those responsibilities limit the spouse’s ability to work. An ongoing caretaking role might warrant continuing spousal support without a set end date, since that spouse’s focus is on caregiving rather than earning. (Note: child support is a separate issue, but heavy childcare duties can influence spousal support duration.)
Efforts Toward Self-Support & Warnings Given: The court will review what efforts the supported spouse has made or is expected to make to become self-supporting. Importantly, if the court anticipates potentially terminating or reducing support in the future, it should give a Gavron Warning (a formal notice to the supported spouse to make reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient). If no such warning has been given and the spouse’s future prospects are unclear, the court may choose a Stallworth approach and simply reserve the right to modify support later rather than impose a deadline now. Essentially, the judge asks: Has the supported spouse been clearly told to seek employment? Are they following through? If not, it may be premature or unfair to set an end date.
Financial Resources and Needs of Each Party: As with any support decision, the court weighs the supported spouse’s needs against the supporting spouse’s ability to pay (see Family Code § 4320 factors). When issuing an indefinite order, the court must be comfortable that the payor can manage the ongoing obligation and that the recipient genuinely needs the support. If the supporting spouse’s financial situation is strong and the supported spouse’s needs remain significant, an open-ended order may be appropriate. Conversely, if the payor’s ability to pay will sharply decline in the near future (for instance, imminent retirement or health issues of the payor), the court might instead structure a step-down plan.
Existence of Any Agreement or Waiver: Courts also consider whether the parties themselves agreed to any limitations on support. If, for example, the spouses signed a marital settlement agreement specifying a termination date or waiving post-judgment support, the court will follow that (absent a violation of public policy). But if there’s no agreement, or if the supported spouse expressly reserved the right to seek support indefinitely (common in long marriages), the court is more free to order a Stallworth-type support arrangement.
Policy of Encouraging Self-Support vs. Avoiding Hardship: Finally, the judge balances two public policies: on one hand, spousal support is intended to be a transition toward financial independence (the law encourages every supported spouse to become self-supporting within a “reasonable period” whenever possible). On the other hand, the court must avoid undue hardship and recognize reality – some ex-spouses may never attain the prior standard of living alone, especially after a lengthy marriage. In issuing a Stallworth Order, the court leans toward preventing hardship by not cutting off support prematurely. The decision typically reflects that the supported spouse’s circumstances make a time-limited support order impractical or unjust at that stage. The court retains the flexibility to modify support if conditions change (e.g., if the supported spouse later achieves independence or if the supporting spouse retires or faces financial strain, either can ask the court to adjust the order).

In summary, a Stallworth Order is all about flexibility and caution – the court keeps spousal support open-ended when the future is uncertain, especially in long marriages, rather than locking in an end date that might prove unrealistic. The above considerations guide judges in determining whether to issue such an order, ensuring they carefully weigh the fairness to both parties. This approach complements other tools (like Richmond Orders and Gavron Warnings) by protecting a dependent spouse from abrupt loss of support while still allowing for the possibility of future modifications as lives evolve after divorce.