childrenRpeople said:
What is the name of your state? CA
Can someone settle this once and for all? IAAL or another knowledgable person (CA law)?
How short is a "short marriage" in California and how likely is it that spousal support will be issued in a short marriage?
I was married 2 yrs. 7 months, was the breadwinner and continue to be the sole supporter for our son.
My ex has a degree and licenses but has difficulty keeping employment.
Thanks for perspective.
CRP
My response:
The length of the parties' marriage bears both on the "need" for support (whether it should be ordered) and on the amount and duration. The longer a spouse has been out of the job market on account of the marriage, the stronger the case for granting support; by the same token, a relatively short marriage can, depending on the other Family Code § 4320 factors and the "totality of the circumstances," offset alleged "need" and justify a lower level of support and/or a shorter support term. [Marriage of Bukaty (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 143, 150, 225 Cal.Rptr. 492, 497; Marriage of Huntington (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1520-1521, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5]
Moreover, duration of the marriage has particular significance on the issue of retention of jurisdiction to extend spousal support in the future. Trial courts do not have the same sort of "continuing jurisdiction" over spousal support as they have over child support. Specifically, absent a reservation of jurisdiction, the court cannot first make a spousal support order once the underlying judgment has become final; nor, absent a reservation of jurisdiction, can the court reinstate spousal support or extend its duration after expiration of the underlying order. [Ca Fam § 4335; Marriage of Beck (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 341, 344, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 81; but see Marriage of Olsen (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1704, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 306, 307 (recognizing court's "inherent power," under unique facts, to reinstate terminated spousal support on basis of unforeseen change in law)]
An initial open-ended support award for a disabled or unemployed spouse who is a "displaced homemaker" without immediate and certain employment potential, has been upheld as within the trial court's discretion. [See Marriage of Baker (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 491, 498, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 553, 557- - despite less-than-10-year marriage, W's income from future employment was speculative]
However, open-ended support because of the obligee spouse's hindered earning ability does not itself mean the obligor will have to make support payments indefinitely. "Even if there were no change of circumstances, the court possesses jurisdiction in the future to modify the order if, upon a proper motion, the court finds it would be just and equitable to do so [Ca Fam § 4320
]." [Marriage of Baker, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at 494, 501-502, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d at 554, 559 (dictum) (emphasis and brackets added); see also J. Benke concur.opn. in Marriage of Heistermann (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1195, 1205, 286 Cal.Rptr. 127, 134 - - "it is conceivable the lengthy duration of support, even if examined superficially, will be clearly unjust in light of the short duration of the marriage and will alone qualify as a changed circumstance under (Ca Fam § 4320
)" (emphasis and parentheses added)]
Except to the extent § 4336(b), above, presumes a marriage of "long duration," whether a marriage is "lengthy," "medium" or "short-term" is not reducible to quantitative terms. At the same time, the question cannot be decided in a vacuum. The duty to retain jurisdiction is inextricably bound up with all of the § 4320 circumstances applicable to the case. [Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 645, 663, 235 Cal.Rptr. 587, 595; Marriage of Wilson (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 913, 920, 247 Cal.Rptr. 522, 526-527]
In practice, in considering whether to terminate jurisdiction, courts should apply the "Morrison rule" by focusing on the qualitative posture of the parties: whether it affirmatively appears from the record that the supported spouse can be self-supporting on the date proposed for termination and whether other relevant circumstances, in addition to the length of marriage, weigh in favor of protecting the support options by fashioning an open-ended order. The result should accommodate the applicable § 4320 factors and Morrison's "commendable goal" that the "duration of support be limited so that both parties, where possible, can develop their own lives, free from obligations to each other." [See detailed analysis in Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at 663-664, 235 Cal.Rptr. at 595-596]
Where an evaluation of all the § 4320 factors indicates the spouse seeking support is in a position to maintain self-support, a retention of jurisdiction after a short marriage can be an abuse of discretion.
IAAL
