Cases Discussing Support

  1. In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269: Children may share in an affluent parent’s standard of living; broad statutory income, including stock options and investment income, must be considered in child and spousal support.
  2. In re Marriage of Kerr (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 87: Future stock-option income may be considered for child and spousal support, but percentage awards must be capped so support remains tied to marital lifestyle and child needs.
  3. In re Marriage of Schulze (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 519: Employer-provided benefits that reduce living expenses, such as a company car and housing subsidy, may count as income; permanent spousal support requires section 4320 analysis, not a computer formula.
  4. In re Marriage of Corman (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1492: Spousal support paid between the parties is excluded from gross income for guideline child support and cannot be used to evade a non-modifiable spousal-support term.
  5. In re Marriage of Hall (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 313: Courts must calculate guideline child support and make the required statutory findings before deviating from the guideline.
  6. In re Marriage of Fini (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1033: Mandatory child-support add-ons, including childcare and uninsured medical costs, may be allocated equally or pro rata based on the parents’ relative circumstances.
  7. In re Marriage of Gigliotti (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 518: Visitation-travel expenses may not simply be carved out of guideline support without statutory authority and the required findings.
  8. In re Marriage of Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988: Bad faith is not required before imputing earning capacity for child support; ability, opportunity, and the child’s best interests control.
  9. In re Marriage of LaBass & Munsee (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1331: A parent who voluntarily works part-time or attends school may have a full-time earning capacity imputed when the evidence supports ability and opportunity.
  10. In re Marriage of Paulin (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1378: Hardship deductions for later-born children require statutory proof, and earning capacity may be imputed to a voluntarily unemployed parent.
  11. In re Marriage of Carlsen (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 212: Hardship deductions require a request and evidentiary showing; new-spouse income may affect tax calculations, but is not income available for support.
  12. In re Marriage of Dacumos (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 150: Rental income, imputed asset income, and retirement withdrawals may be included as support income, while a second job held because of inadequate support may be excluded.
  13. In re Marriage of Destein (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1385: A reasonable rate of return may be imputed to non-income-producing assets when needed to calculate appropriate child support.
  14. Stewart v. Gomez (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1748: Disability benefits, rent-free housing, meal allowances, and earning capacity are income or benefits that can be considered for child support.
  15. County of Placer v. Andrade (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1393: Regular overtime and bonuses are gross income for child support and must be included when reasonably predictable.
  16. County of Kern v. Castle (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1442: An inheritance is not income by itself, but inherited wealth, reduced living expenses, and use of inherited assets may be considered in setting support.
  17. In re Marriage of Rocha (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 514: Student-loan proceeds are not income for child support because they create a repayment obligation rather than debt-free resources.
  18. In re Marriage of Loh (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 325: Lifestyle evidence, especially a lifestyle funded by a new partner, cannot replace proper proof of actual income for guideline support.
  19. In re Marriage of Henry (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 111: Child-support income findings must rest on substantial evidence; speculative income or home-equity appreciation cannot substitute for actual or properly imputed income.
  20. In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075: Cash flow is not necessarily statutory income; debt-forgiveness income counts, and fluctuating earnings must be measured over a fair representative period.
  21. In re Marriage of de Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353: In a high-asset case, support may exceed current income when special circumstances and the children’s marital lifestyle justify it.
  22. In re Marriage of Scheppers (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 646: Life-insurance death-benefit proceeds are an asset, not support income, although interest or reasonable return on the proceeds may be considered.
  23. In re Marriage of Pearlstein (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1361: Business-sale proceeds are generally assets rather than compensation income for support, and support should not be diverted into a restrictive trust without a proper basis.
  24. In re Marriage of Heiner (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1514: Personal-injury settlement proceeds are primarily assets, but actual or imputed investment return and reduced expenses may be considered for support.
  25. In re Marriage of Rothrock (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 223: Structured-settlement payments from a personal-injury recovery are not support income unless the settlement shows they replace income such as lost wages.
  26. In re Marriage of Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747: Courts may impute reasonable investment returns and account for mortgage-free housing when calculating child support.
  27. In re Marriage of Bardzik (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1291: The party seeking imputation of income bears the burden to prove ability and opportunity to earn; prior earnings alone are insufficient.
  28. In re Marriage of Mosley (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1375: Support may not be based on an uncertain discretionary bonus as though it were guaranteed; realistic base salary and proven prospective income control.
  29. In re Marriage of Alter (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 718: Child support remains prospectively modifiable despite a contractual floor, and regular family gifts or stipends may be treated as income.
  30. In re Marriage of Berger (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1070: Deferred compensation voluntarily left unpaid can be income available for support; an obligor cannot reduce support by choosing deferral.
  31. In re Marriage of Sorge (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 626: Postjudgment fiduciary disclosure duties tied to support ended with the dissolution judgment on the facts presented, but support and fee orders were otherwise affirmed.
  32. In re Marriage of Cryer (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039: In an extraordinarily high-earner case, the court may deviate from the guideline to preserve the child’s circumstances, but cannot require an accounting or trust absent authority.
  33. In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139: Guideline support applies to an incapacitated adult child, and successor representatives may pursue modification, security, and fee orders.
  34. In re Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 546: Involuntary job loss can support modification, but retroactive reduction may be denied for good cause based on the children’s needs and the obligor’s resources.
  35. In re Marriage of Tavares (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 620: Accrued child support and childcare add-ons cannot be retroactively reduced because the obligor later disputes expenses or alleges concealment while the child remains a minor.
  36. In re Marriage of Sabine & Toshio M. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1203: Accrued support arrears and interest generally cannot be waived or forgiven retroactively; parties may only prospectively modify future support through a valid agreement.
  37. In re Marriage of Copeman (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 324: Laches may bar stale child-support arrears where unreasonable delay and prejudice make enforcement inequitable.
  38. In re Marriage of Cutler (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 460: Old child-support judgments remain enforceable until paid in full; lack of diligence is not a defense, and laches failed on the facts.
  39. In re Marriage of Fogarty & Rasbeary (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1353: Laches remains an equitable defense to enforcement of stale child-support arrears when delay and prejudice make collection inequitable.
  40. In re Marriage of Comer (1996) 14 Cal.4th 504: Concealment ending while children are minors does not bar child-support arrears, and a public-assistance assignee is not estopped by the custodial parent’s conduct.
  41. Moss v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 396: Contempt may enforce child support based on earning capacity when nonpayment stems from willful failure to seek or accept suitable work; inability is an affirmative defense.
  42. Johnson v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 68: In high-earner support discovery, courts may use least-favorable reasonable assumptions against a resisting high earner or allow limited discovery needed to set support.
  43. McGinley v. Herman (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 936: A high-income parent cannot rely on an arbitrary low reasonable-needs award; support must meaningfully reflect the child’s right to share that parent’s standard of living.
  44. In re Marriage of Hubner (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 175: A high earner who disputes child support must disclose actual income, and support for an adult high-school student continues while statutory school-age requirements are met.
  45. In re Marriage of Chandler (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 124: Child-support trusts are disfavored and require strong necessity plus specific findings before restricting the custodial parent’s access to support funds.
  46. County of Stanislaus v. Gibbs (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1417: Consumer debt and indirect benefit to the custodial household are not special circumstances justifying below-guideline child support.
  47. In re Marriage of Murray (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 581: A court may retroactively reinstate reserved or suspended spousal support when the payor had the ability to pay and prior suspension rested on misleading financial circumstances.
  48. In re Marriage of Terry (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 921: A supported spouse’s separate estate includes total asset value and reasonable income potential, and may justify terminating spousal support.
  49. In re Marriage of Zywiciel (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1078: Permanent spousal support cannot be set by DissoMaster or temporary-support formulas; the court must independently weigh the section 4320 factors.
  50. In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225: Recurring monetary gifts to a supported spouse may be considered as one factor in spousal support, and changed circumstances may support reduction or termination.
  51. In re Marriage of Nelson (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1546: Marital standard of living is a reference point, not a floor or ceiling, for permanent spousal support; section 4320 needs and ability factors control.
  52. In re Marriage of Ackerman (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 191: Courts may impute income from assets and earning capacity to a supported spouse, and step-down or termination orders are valid when supported by evidence of self-support ability.
  53. In re Marriage of Geraci (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1278: Spousal support must include meaningful section 4320 analysis, and cohabitation evidence must be considered because it creates a presumption of reduced need.
  54. In re Marriage of Blazer (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1438: Reasonable business reinvestment may be treated as a business expense rather than owner income for spousal support, and using post-separation business income is not necessarily double dipping.
  55. In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240: Unrealized self-support expectations and a supported spouse’s employment or career change may justify spousal-support modification; courts may consider prudent use of substantial assets.
  56. In re Marriage of Kacik (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 410: Termination of companion child support may support a spousal-support modification only when the request is reasonably contemporaneous; a 17-month delay was too long.
  57. In re Marriage of Schmir (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 43: A support termination based on employability and available retirement assets may be justified, but abrupt termination without fair notice and reasonable time to work is an abuse of discretion.
  58. In re Marriage of Dietz (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 387: Penalty-free access to, and appreciation of, retirement accounts awarded in the judgment is not, without more, a material change justifying spousal-support reduction.
  59. In re Marriage of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1467: A supported spouse seeking to extend a Richmond/stepdown order must show material changed circumstances, including reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to become self-supporting.
  60. In re Marriage of Wittgrove (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1317: Temporary support may consider the parties’ overall assets, income, and marital status quo; the high-earner exception and imputed income require competent evidence.
  61. In re Marriage of Lim & Carrasco (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 768: Support may be based on a parent’s actual reduced work schedule where the reduction is in the children’s best interests and no improper shirking is shown.
  62. In re Marriage of Samson (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 23: Temporary spousal support is discretionary and aimed at preserving the marital status quo; severance and variable compensation must be allocated realistically rather than mechanically treated as one month’s bonus.
  63. In re Marriage of Cauley (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1100: Section 4325’s domestic-violence presumption can override a nonmodifiable spousal-support agreement; victims should not be required to finance their abuser.
  64. In re Marriage of MacManus (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 330: Domestic-violence history must be considered in temporary spousal support, and may affect allocation or reallocation of temporary support obligations.
  65. In re Marriage of Freitas (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1059: The changed-circumstances rule did not prevent terminating temporary spousal support under the section 4325 domestic-violence presumption; reserved jurisdiction permitted reconsideration of child support.
  66. Asfaw v. Woldberhan (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1407: Depreciation of rental property is not deductible from gross income when calculating child support because it is a noncash expense.
  67. In re Marriage of Williams (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1221: Income may be imputed to underutilized investment assets, but home equity cannot be treated as income absent special circumstances under section 4057.
  68. In re Marriage of Smith (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 74: Earning capacity requires both ability and opportunity to work; an incarcerated parent with no work opportunity or assets cannot have income imputed solely because of the offense.
  69. Rojas v. Mitchell (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1445: When deviating from guideline child support, the court must state the guideline amount, reasons for deviation, and why the order is in the child’s best interests.
  70. In re Marriage of Laudeman (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1009: A stipulated above-guideline child-support order cannot be reduced to guideline absent admissible evidence of changed financial circumstances.
  71. In re Marriage of Left (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1137: A commitment ceremony without a valid legal marriage does not terminate spousal support; cohabitation, self-support evidence, and withheld community property may affect modification.
  72. In re Marriage of Macilwaine (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 514: Vested and mature stock options available to an employee-parent are income for child support even if unexercised, and high-earner deviations require proper needs findings.
  73. In re Marriage of Ficke (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 10: Imputing income to a custodial parent requires an express, evidence-supported finding that imputation is in the children’s best interests.