CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Spousal Support
......Amount
.........Cases Favoring Paying Spouse
 24 Cards On This Topic:
  • Trial ct. correctly did not include H's rental income in temporary and permanent s/s orders where tax return did not show significant rental income.
  • Permanent s/s award reversed as too low where trial ct. did not explain why it was just and reasonable for W's award to be below the marital standard of living.
  • A disparity in income, standing alone, does not justify an award of spousal support; all FC 4320 factors must be considered.
  • Order increasing child support and decreasing spousal support gave effect to intent behind original support agreement.
  • Failure of supported spouse to invest prudently own substantial assets may be grounds for termination of spousal support.
  • W's exaggerated income and expense declaration cast doubt on her credibility.
  • Trial court reversed for increasing spousal support when W had been able to save on existing order.
  • Low spousal support award affirmed. That Court of Appeal might have awarded more, not the test.
  • Amount too high based on H's income and W's receiving part of H's pension.
  • Standard of living of supported spouse may be lowered if paying spouse cannot maintain both at their prior standard of living.
  • Supported spouse cannot request high value, nonincome- producing assets then require paying spouse to make higher spousal support payments.
  • If supported spouse did well on pendente lite award, permanent order may be in same amount.
  • Award of substantial c/p may remove or reduce obligation to pay spousal support.
  • If supported spouse did well on pendente lite award, permanent order may be in same amount.
  • Low amount of spousal support affirmed, provided court retains jurisdiction to modify.
  • Low amount of spousal support affirmed, provided court retains jurisdiction to modify.
  • Low amount of spousal support affirmed. W also got use of family residence during children's minority.
  • Low award affirmed based on H's assumption c/p debts.
  • Court reversed for failure to terminate or decrease alimony where supported spouse obtained adequate employment.
  • Combined support award to supported spouse should not be so high as to discriminate against other children in paying spouse's custody.
  • Support ordered excessive in view of obligations assumed by H and rental value of house awarded to W.
  • Temporary spousal support order reversed because supported spouse had sufficient income to support herself.
  • Cases discussing various issues favorable to paying spouse re spousal support.
  • Effect of supported spouse's ability to save out of support payments.


    •