In this unpublished opinion by California's Second Appellate District the Court is asked to determine the starting date for interest on child support arrearages. Wife appealed the trial court's ruling that interest began to accrue from the date of the arrearages order and argued that the interest should accrue at the time each child support payment was initially due pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.020(b).

The Court of Appeal held that unpaid child support arising from an initial support order (as opposed to an order for arrearages) is treated like an installment payment judgment and interest accrues when each payment comes due. Family Code, section 155. Courts have no authority to waive or forgive interest accrued on past-due child support amounts. Thus, husband is liable for interest measured from the date each child support payment was originally due, not from when the arrearages order was made.

Case: Marriage of Richardson
Court: Los Angeles
Trial judge: Commissioner Veasey
NOT PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

Labels: arrearages, child support, divorce, interest, unpublished, veasey

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, First District, overturned a Sonoma County trial court ruling which had reduced, and then tapered, the amount spousal support a wife had been receiving since the parties' divorce. The wife had initially declared that she would become a school teacher but instead became a real estate agent. In reducing, then ending, the spousal support amount, the trial court relied on the length of the marriage, her favorable earnings outlook, and the fact that she had received significant community property assets that she had failed to save.

However, the Appellate Court found this marriage of twenty (20) years was of "long duration" pursuant to Family Code, section 4336 and, thus, is not subject to the Family Code, section 4320(l) goal that a supported spouse become self-supporting within a reasonable time (generally, one-half the length of the marriage).

The Court also found her earnings outlook to be less than what the trial court had determined it to be.

Finally, the Court found the wife's lack of savings from her community property share should not be imputed against her as she was not asking for a support payment above the amount of support she received while she was also receiving community property payments.

However, the Court rejected the wife's assertion that there had been no material change in circumstances that would warrant a review of support as the wife's decision to abandon her stated career choice and take a different path, a path which enabled her to find employment and earn money, was a material change.

Case: Marriage of West
Court: Sonoma
Trial Judge: Bertoli

Labels: alimony, change of circumstances, divorce, spousal support