Modification of Temporary Spousal Support (Alimony)
**UNPUBLISHED**
Husband and wife had been married for thirty years. Wife filed for divorce when she was 54; husband was 56 and was a physician employed full time by UCLA. Husband received additional income from speaking engagements, writings and honoraria. Wife filed an order to show cause (OSC) for spousal support. At issue were husband's consultation fees for treatment of a Saudi Arabian head of state, who husband travelled to see once a year.
Wife was a registered nurse and had an MS and PhD in nursing and child development. She worked as a head nurse and research coordinator at UCLA and had been on the faculty of the UCLA School of Nursing. After her children were born, she focused on raising the family and worked only part-time for the past twenty years. She is currently unemployed.
Wife claims that husband makes $266,000 per year for his house calls to Saudi Arabia. Husband claims that the house calls are sporadic and are now limited to a maximum of $140,000 per year. Further, the patient will soon die, and the visits will cease.
The family trial court found that husband's income approximated $54,000 per month; no income was imputed to wife. The court ordered husband to pay $21,000 in spousal support. After the patient died in Saudia Arabia, husband filed an OSC to modify spousal support. The court found that husband's monthly income had been reduced to $35,000 and set alimony at $12,000 per month.
Wife appeals, contending that husband failed to meet his burden to show that his lost income could not be replaced. She also argued that court should wait 12 months before determining whether husband can replace his income.
Court of appeals upheld lower court decision. Family Code, section 3600 allows for temporary alimony during a divorce. The support is intended to maintain the living conditions as close to the status quo as possible. The trial court has broad discretion in making the award, subject only to wife's needs and husband's ability to pay. Here, the majority of wife's contentions relate to an award of permanent alimony. The lower court rightly relied on husband's present ability to pay and wife's present needs.
Case: Verzemnieks v. Cummings
Court: Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Judge: Richard E. Denner
NOT CITEABLE
Husband and wife had been married for thirty years. Wife filed for divorce when she was 54; husband was 56 and was a physician employed full time by UCLA. Husband received additional income from speaking engagements, writings and honoraria. Wife filed an order to show cause (OSC) for spousal support. At issue were husband's consultation fees for treatment of a Saudi Arabian head of state, who husband travelled to see once a year.
Wife was a registered nurse and had an MS and PhD in nursing and child development. She worked as a head nurse and research coordinator at UCLA and had been on the faculty of the UCLA School of Nursing. After her children were born, she focused on raising the family and worked only part-time for the past twenty years. She is currently unemployed.
Wife claims that husband makes $266,000 per year for his house calls to Saudi Arabia. Husband claims that the house calls are sporadic and are now limited to a maximum of $140,000 per year. Further, the patient will soon die, and the visits will cease.
The family trial court found that husband's income approximated $54,000 per month; no income was imputed to wife. The court ordered husband to pay $21,000 in spousal support. After the patient died in Saudia Arabia, husband filed an OSC to modify spousal support. The court found that husband's monthly income had been reduced to $35,000 and set alimony at $12,000 per month.
Wife appeals, contending that husband failed to meet his burden to show that his lost income could not be replaced. She also argued that court should wait 12 months before determining whether husband can replace his income.
Court of appeals upheld lower court decision. Family Code, section 3600 allows for temporary alimony during a divorce. The support is intended to maintain the living conditions as close to the status quo as possible. The trial court has broad discretion in making the award, subject only to wife's needs and husband's ability to pay. Here, the majority of wife's contentions relate to an award of permanent alimony. The lower court rightly relied on husband's present ability to pay and wife's present needs.
Case: Verzemnieks v. Cummings
Court: Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Judge: Richard E. Denner
NOT CITEABLE
Labels: alimony, modification, spousal support
