CA. Law

What is the name of state CA.
I was wondering if you could collect alimony and live with the opposite sex. ROOMMATE SETTING. I would be paying him rent. I am 57 years old and don’t really know the law for this. Before I decided to make that move. I want to be sure that I am not breaking any laws.

candym said:

What is the name of state CA.
I was wondering if you could collect alimony and live with the opposite sex. ROOMMATE SETTING. I would be paying him rent. I am 57 years old and don’t really know the law for this. Before I decided to make that move. I want to be sure that I am not breaking any laws.

Click to expand...

My response:

Cohabitation with someone of the opposite, or even the same, sex does not inhibit orders requiring Spousal Support - - unless the roommate is providing more than limited amounts of support to you. Cohabitation, alone, is not a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant the presumption that Spousal Support should be discontinued.

Besides, California isn't one of those "right wing", Bible-Thumping, southern Dufus pick-up truck states - - where you're made to feel the government is intruding in your life, and squirrel is part of the menu. In short, California couldn't care less how you live your life or what you do behind closed doors.

Your Spousal Support is safe under your facts.

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Cohabitation with someone of the opposite, or even the same, sex does not inhibit orders requiring Spousal Support - - unless the roommate is providing more than limited amounts of support to you. Cohabitation, alone, is not a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant the presumption that Spousal Support should be discontinued.

Besides, California isn't one of those "right wing", Bible-Thumping, southern Dufus pick-up truck states - - where you're made to feel the government is intruding in your life, and squirrel is part of the menu. In short, California couldn't care less how you live your life or what you do behind closed doors.

Your Spousal Support is safe under your facts.

IAAL

Click to expand...

Thank you for your help

Disagree with Previous Person Completely

The following comes directly from California Family Code which can be accessed through: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov I would advice caution about moving in the a person of the opposite sex.
California Family Code Section:
4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in
writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of
proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party
is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon a
determination that circumstances have changed, the court may modify
or terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.
(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person
with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute
cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.
(b) The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying spousal support.
(c) Nothing in this section precludes later modification or
termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.

Randall Somer said:

The following comes directly from California Family Code which can be accessed through: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov I would advice caution about moving in the a person of the opposite sex.
California Family Code Section:
4323. (a) (1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in
writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of
proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party
is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Upon a
determination that circumstances have changed, the court may modify
or terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1.
(2) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person
with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute
cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.
(b) The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying spousal support.
(c) Nothing in this section precludes later modification or
termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.

Click to expand...

My response:

You see, this is why you're not an attorney. Basing your response soley upon the Statute is a mistake. This is why I said, "Your Spousal Support is safe under your facts."

Unless the parties have "otherwise agreed" in writing, the supported party's cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex gives rise to a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, of decreased need for spousal support. [Ca Fam § 4323(a)(1)]

In other words, the obligee's opposite-sex cohabitation is a presumptive material change of circumstances justifying a spousal support reduction "because sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale . . . [and], more importantly, the cohabitant's income may be available to the obligee spouse." [Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 899, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 525 (brackets added; internal quotes and citation omitted)]

Thus, pursuant to § 4323(a)(1), the obligor (the person paying the support) will prevail on a request to terminate or reduce spousal support upon proof the supported party is living with a person of the opposite sex . . . unless the parties agreed in writing this occurrence would not be a basis for modification or the obligee rebuts the presumption by sufficient proof the cohabitation has not affected his or her need for support. [See Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 238 Cal.Rptr. 12--court erred in failing to reduce support for ex-wife who had commenced nonmarital cohabitation]

Triggering "cohabitation":
An obligor seeking a spousal support reduction or termination need simply show the obligee is now "cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex." A "Marvin-type" nonmarital cohabitation relationship is not required: "Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision." [Ca Fam § 4323(a)(2) (emphasis added)]

"Boarding arrangement" not enough:
However, the statute contemplates more than a simple roommate or "boarding arrangement." There must be a showing of a sexual, romantic or at least a "homemaker-companion" relationship. [See Marriage of Thweatt (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 530, 157 Cal.Rptr. 826; Marriage of Regnery (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1367, 263 Cal.Rptr. 243--§ 4323(a) presumption inapplicable where alleged cohabitant shown to be renting "tenant"; compare Marriage of Bower, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 900-901, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d at 525-526--parties' relationship changed from mere "room-mates" to "cohabitation," triggering § 4323 (a)(1) presumption]

By the same token, a boarding or other cohabitation relationship that is not sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption might still amount to a factual change of circumstances warranting a support decrease--as where the supported party's living expenses are partially offset by rent received from a tenant. The obligor may still prevail on a support decrease request, although without the aid of the statutory presumption. [See Ca Fam § 4323(c)--"Nothing in this section precludes later modification or termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances"]

Compare--same-sex cohabitation:
The statute clearly states the presumption of decreased need arises only if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex. Consequently, a support modification based on decreased need due to a same-sex cohabitation relationship would have to be supported by factual evidence (cohabitant's contributions to obligee's living expenses, etc.) without the aid of a presumption.


IAAL

Well not to detract.. well ...

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Cohabitation with someone of the opposite, or even the same, sex does not inhibit orders requiring Spousal Support - - unless the roommate is providing more than limited amounts of support to you. Cohabitation, alone, is not a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant the presumption that Spousal Support should be discontinued.

Besides, California isn't one of those "right wing", Bible-Thumping, southern Dufus pick-up truck states - - where you're made to feel the government is intruding in your life, and squirrel is part of the menu. In short, California couldn't care less how you live your life or what you do behind closed doors.

Your Spousal Support is safe under your facts.

IAAL

Click to expand...

As your facts are safe to back up... and the only Bible thumping we see here in Cali is where we try to get the sand out when we spend Sundays at the beach and try to "catch up" on our reading of the Good book.
I have to say. be careful of your wording...
Our Governator has been linked with Hanna-Barbera's Secret Squirrel... so try to use a badger or a opposum next time... I don't see any links there. at least not that degrade our great (wet) state

Of course with all due respect... I would hate to get on your roadkill list.

I Stand Corrected Thank You "I Am Always Liable"

I stand corrected; thank you "I Am Always Liable", since basing an interpretation of the law solely upon the Statute is a mistake. I must ask how is one to interpret the Statute.

Randall Somer said:

I must ask how is one to interpret the Statute.

Click to expand...

My response:

By using "case law", as I have in my response to you. Appellate court decisions (case law) "interpret" statutes and other case law. That's how.

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

Besides, California isn't one of those "right wing", Bible-Thumping, southern Dufus pick-up truck states - - where you're made to feel the government is intruding in your life, and squirrel is part of the menu. In short, California couldn't care less how you live your life or what you do behind closed doors.

Click to expand...

Until recently...and I am not making this up...one of the highlights of the session of the Missouri General Assembly was the coon roast that all the legislators attended.

But California has its share of left wing rednecks! Cain't deny that pard!

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

By using "case law", as I have in my response to you. Appellate court decisions (case law) "interpret" statutes and other case law. That's how.

IAAL

Click to expand...

Again, I thank you for your love of the law and for sharing.

Rednecks

seniorjudge said:

Until recently...and I am not making this up...one of the highlights of the session of the Missouri General Assembly was the coon roast that all the legislators attended.

But California has its share of left wing rednecks! Cain't deny that pard!

Click to expand...

Where would State's rights be without rednecks? God uses us all...

Randall Somer said:

Again, I thank you for your love of the law and for sharing.

Click to expand...

My response:

Should I start gagging now, or wait another hour?

IAAL

It Depends

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Should I start gagging now, or wait another hour?

IAAL

Click to expand...

When do you plan on going swimming?

Dreadfully Sorry I Misinterpeted you "I AM Always Liable"

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Should I start gagging now, or wait another hour?

IAAL

Click to expand...

Dreadfully Sorry, clearly, I Misinterpeted you "I AM Always Liable." Good Day to you sir...

My response:

Here's the message I actually received from good ol' "religious" Randall Somer before he edited his last post:

"gag and die and present you case the the ultimate Judge. Sorry, I thought you had a heart but you are a lawyer of the worst kind."

Click to expand...

How sweet!

IAAL