CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Spousal Support
......Amount
.........Cases Favoring Supported Spouse
 19 Cards On This Topic:
  • Trial ct. record supported finding that H had ability to pay s/s; income-generating potential of assets W received for equalization or FC §1101 payments not relevant to H's ability to pay support.
  • A spouse's needs are only one factor to be considered in determining spousal support.
  • $30,000 temporary s/s award affirmed for spouse earning $16,700/mo.
  • Large support award affirmed, despite H's having no assets or income in his name, where he had use and control over them.
  • H may not defeat spousal support claim by citing cost of servicing loan used to finance property equalization payment.
  • W properly awarded portion of H's future bonuses as additional spousal support. Court must consider all factors in former Civil Code section 4801.
  • W entitled to live at marital standard of living, buy replacement residence and save for retirement. Look to actual, not theoretical, rate of return from her investments.
  • Permanent support order which leaves parties at significantly different standards of living is abuse of discretion.
  • Court improperly considered $15,000 which W received from sale of a vacant lot as factor in reducing her spousal support.
  • $3,500/mo affirmed to W with $3 million because income generated insufficient to maintain standard of living.
  • May not base spousal support award solely on difference between income and needs. Other factors in former Civil Code section 4801 must be considered.
  • Award did not provide adequate support.
  • Monies received from sale of c/p assets awarded to supported spouse need not be considered.
  • Supported spouse not required to live from capital, if income insufficient.
  • Support order which leaves the parties at significantly different standards of living held abuse of discretion.
  • Supported spouse not required to invest stagnant s/p into income-producing assets.
  • Low award reversed where supported spouse awarded significant nonincome-producing assets.
  • Court should disregard paying spouse's s/p investment commitments and liabilities when calculating ability to pay.
  • Miscellaneous cases favorable to the supported spouse.


    •