California Family Code § 915: Support From Prior Relationships

Plain-Language Summary

California Family Code §915 applies when one spouse has a child or spousal support duty that arose outside the current marriage (for example, an obligation to an ex-spouse or to children from another relationship). The law says any such outside support obligation is treated as if it were a debt incurred before the marriage. In practical terms, this means that if community (marital) assets are used to pay that prior support obligation, the community may be able to get reimbursed under certain conditions.

Specifically, §915(b) provides that if community property was used to satisfy the support obligation while the spouse had separate income available but did not use it, then the community estate is entitled to reimbursement from the spouse’s separate income (up to the amount of community property applied). In other words, the spouse who paid the support must reimburse the community to the extent their own income could have paid it. Finally, §915(c) clarifies that this reimbursement rule does not prevent a court from considering any relevant factors (such as each spouse’s earnings) when determining support amounts.

Real-World Examples

Prior child support obligation: Imagine a husband has children from a previous marriage and pays child support during his current marriage. If he uses joint savings or income to make those payments, and he had separate income available that he didn’t use, then his wife may claim reimbursement for those community funds under §915. In essence, the support debt to the ex-spouse is treated as premarital debt, and the community can recover the amount that should have been covered by the husband’s own income.
Prior spousal support obligation: Similarly, if a wife owes alimony to a former husband and ends up using the couple’s joint accounts to pay it while she had personal income available, the community estate may seek reimbursement. Section 915 would treat the past alimony obligation as premarital, and the wife would have to repay the community for the support payments up to the amount of her unused separate income.
No reimbursement if no separate funds were available: If a spouse truly had no separate (non-marital) income available to pay the old support obligation, then §915’s reimbursement rule does not apply. In that situation, even though the debt is treated as premarital, the community cannot demand repayment because the condition (having unused separate income) wasn’t met.

Published Case Law on § 915

Weinberg v. Weinberg (1967) 67 Cal.2d 557: A landmark California Supreme Court case that set the stage for the reimbursement rule. Weinberg held that when community funds pay a spouse’s premarital support obligations, the community is entitled to reimbursement proportional to the spouse’s separate earnings. This case inspired the statutory rule now found in §915.
In re Marriage of Smaltz (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 568: A Court of Appeal case decided before §915 was enacted. The court held that the community could not be reimbursed for spousal support payments to an ex-wife when the husband had no separate funds available. This illustrates that reimbursement is only allowed if separate income was available to pay the debt.
In re Marriage of Sherman (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 795: The key case directly applying §915. The court agreed that each support payment to a prior relationship is a separate obligation. It held that to recover community funds, the spouse must show he or she had separate income available at the time each payment was made. This case emphasized that reimbursement under §915 requires proof of available separate income for each payment.

Full Text of California Family Code § 915

(a) For the purpose of this part, a child or spousal support obligation of a married person that does not arise out of the marriage shall be treated as a debt incurred before marriage, regardless of whether a court order for support is made or modified before or during marriage and regardless of whether any installment payment on the obligation accrues before or during marriage.

(b) If property in the community estate is applied to the satisfaction of a child or spousal support obligation of a married person that does not arise out of the marriage, at a time when nonexempt separate income of the person is available but is not applied to the satisfaction of the obligation, the community estate is entitled to reimbursement from the person in the amount of the separate income, not exceeding the property in the community estate so applied.

(c) Nothing in this section limits the matters a court may take into consideration in determining or modifying the amount of a support order, including, but not limited to, the earnings of the spouses of the parties.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws and their interpretations can change, and how the law applies to your specific situation may vary. For advice regarding your own circumstances, consult a qualified attorney.