Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 California opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Kerrgreen2 sentences2014(See In re Marriage of Kerr (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 87, 93 [“In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 2012(Kerr, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 93 [“In making its spousal support order, the trial court possesses broad discretion so as to fairly exercise the weighing process contemplated by section 4320, with the goal of accomplishing substantial justice for the parties in the case before it.”].) “In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320.” (Kerr, at p. 93, fn. omitted.) However, once it does so, “the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of | 4 | 7 |
In re Marriage of McLaingreen2 sentences2022(Ibid.; In re Marriage of McLain (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 262, 269 (McLain) [in awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of § 4320].) The court does not have discretion to ignore any relevant circumstance enumerated in the statute. 2022(Ibid.; In re Marriage of McLain (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 262, 269 (McLain) [in awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of § 4320].) The court does not have discretion to ignore any relevant circumstance enumerated in the statute. | 2 | 6 |
Nicole v. Leftgreen2 sentences2023The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When Considering the Section 4320 Factors A trial court must consider the factors in section 4320 when determining whether a material change in circumstances has occurred.7 (In re Marriage of Left (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1150 (Left).) “The court has discretion as to the weight it gives to 7 Section 4320 requires courts to consider the following circumstances when issuing an order on spousal support: “(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage . . . 2015(In re Marriage of Left (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1153, fn. 11 .) As relevant here, those factors include the marketable skills of the supported party and job market for those skills, the extent to which the supported party’s earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment during the marriage to permit the supported party to devote time to domestic duties, the ability of the supporting party to pay support, the needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage, the ability of the supported party to engage in gainful employment without unduly interfe | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Ostler & Smithgreen2 sentences1999“The issue of spousal support, including its purpose, is one which is truly personal to the parties.” (In re Marriage of Smith, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 481.) In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 6 Once "the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. (225 Cal.App.3d at pp. 479-480.) “Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in 1999“The issue of spousal support, including its purpose, is one which is truly personal to the parties.” (In re Marriage of Smith, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 481.) In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 6 Once "the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. (225 Cal.App.3d at pp. 479-480.) “Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in | 2 | 2 |
Marriage of Maher and Strawngreen2 sentences2025(Maher & Strawn, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 363.) Once it does so, it has broad discretion to issue a spousal support order that accomplishes substantial justice for the parties. 2023Once the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. [Citation.] “Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in reviewing these orders.” ’ ” [Citation.] An abuse of discretion occurs “ ‘when it can be said that no judge reasonably could have made the same order.’ ” ’ ” (In re Marriage of Maher & Strawn (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 356 , 363, second bracketed insertion added.) Respondent’s Ability | 1 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Meegangreen2 sentences2023Once the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. [Citation.] “Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in reviewing these orders.” ’ ” (In re Marriage of McLain (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 262, 269 .) An abuse of discretion occurs only “ ‘when it can be said that no judge reasonably could have made the same order.’ ” (In re Marriage of Meegan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 156, 161 .) B. 2020Once the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. [Citation.] “Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in reviewing these orders.” ’ ” (In re Marriage of McLain (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 262, 269 .) An abuse of discretion occurs “ ‘when it can be said that no judge reasonably could have made the same order.’ ” (In re Marriage of Meegan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 156, 161 (Meegan).) Mou contend | 1 | 2 |
In Re the Marriage of Smithgreen2 sentences2015Once the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. [Citation.] ‘Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in reviewing these orders.’” (In re Marriage of Kerr (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 87, 93 , fn. omitted.) “‘A trial court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless, as a matter of law, an abuse of discretion is shown—i.e.,—where, considering all the relevant circumstan 1999“The issue of spousal support, including its purpose, is one which is truly personal to the parties.” (In re Marriage of Smith, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 481.) In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 6 Once "the court does so, the ultimate decision as to amount and duration of spousal support rests within its broad discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. (225 Cal.App.3d at pp. 479-480.) “Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in | 1 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Arceneauxgreen1 sentence2026“A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and 9 presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 (Arceneaux).)3 Gila also argues the trial court made various errors in its statement of decision, including the amount of interest she would receive on her investment income, failure to consider investment returns on the assets Ayal was awarded, and improperly equating taxable rental receipts with non- taxable spousal support. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of Kahan & Diamondgreen1 sentence2023The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When Considering the Section 4320 Factors A trial court must consider the factors in section 4320 when determining whether a material change in circumstances has occurred.7 (In re Marriage of Left (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1150 (Left).) “The court has discretion as to the weight it gives to 7 Section 4320 requires courts to consider the following circumstances when issuing an order on spousal support: “(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage . . . | 1 | 1 |
Shimkus v. Shimkusgreen1 sentence2023The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When Considering the Section 4320 Factors A trial court must consider the factors in section 4320 when determining whether a material change in circumstances has occurred.7 (In re Marriage of Left (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1150 (Left).) “The court has discretion as to the weight it gives to 7 Section 4320 requires courts to consider the following circumstances when issuing an order on spousal support: “(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage . . . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Poppegreen2 sentences2012However, the converse is not true; a showing of changed circumstances does not necessarily mandate a modification of spousal support.” (In re Marriage of Poppe (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 500 ].) Even assuming the mere fact that appellant Madhu was a Ph.D. student and not employed full time constituted a material change of circumstances, the appellate record does not establish that the superior court failed to consider all relevant evidence of the section 4320 circumstances that was presented or abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion. 2012However, the converse is not true; a showing of changed circumstances does not necessarily mandate a modification of spousal support.” (In re Marriage of Poppe (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 500 ].) Even assuming the mere fact that appellant Madhu was a Ph.D. student and not employed full time constituted a material change of circumstances, the appellate record does not establish that the superior court failed to consider all relevant evidence of the section 4320 circumstances that was presented or abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cheriton v. Fraser
red
2 sentences2016To the contrary, the trial judge must both recognize and apply each applicable statutory factor in setting spousal support. [Citations].” (Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 .) The standard of review for an order of permanent spousal support is therefore abuse of discretion. “ ‘In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 2015(Cheriton, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 .) “In making its spousal support order, 6. the trial court possesses broad discretion so as to fairly exercise the weighing process contemplated by section 4320, with the goal of accomplishing substantial justice for the parties in the case before it.… In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. | 4 | 2014–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Jovel
green
2 sentences2018As the record supports the trial court's findings regarding Tonya's unnecessary and overly litigious conduct, we defer to the court's determination of the reasonable amount of attorney's fees necessary for the litigation. ( Jovel , supra , 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 588 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 740 .) Tonya also contends the court failed to consider the factors enumerated in section 4320 in determining the amount of the award. 2018As the record supports the trial court's findings regarding Tonya's unnecessary and overly litigious conduct, we defer to the court's determination of the reasonable amount of attorney's fees necessary for the litigation. ( Jovel , supra , 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 588 , 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 740 .) Tonya also contends the court failed to consider the factors enumerated in section 4320 in determining the amount of the award. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Ciprari v. Ciprari (In re Ciprari)
green
2 sentences2022The court must recognize and apply each applicable statutory factor in setting spousal support. ( Ciprari, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th t p. 108.) (a) Modification Based on Retroactive Application of the Unconscionability Finding Kim seeks modification based upon invalidation of the PMA. 2022The court must recognize and apply each applicable statutory factor in setting spousal support. ( Ciprari, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th t p. 108.) (a) Modification Based on Retroactive Application of the Unconscionability Finding Kim seeks modification based upon invalidation of the PMA. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Marriage of Nelson
green
2 sentences2019To the contrary, the trial judge must both recognize and apply each applicable statutory factor in setting spousal support." ( In re Marriage of Nelson (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1546 , 1559, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 52 .) In this case, the court discussed its consideration and application of the section 4320 factors and circumstances, to the extent applicable, in its statement of decision: "After the division of assets set forth herein, the Court finds that neither party will have any debt. 2019To the contrary, the trial judge must both recognize and apply each applicable statutory factor in setting spousal support." ( In re Marriage of Nelson (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1546 , 1559, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 52 .) In this case, the court discussed its consideration and application of the section 4320 factors and circumstances, to the extent applicable, in its statement of decision: "After the division of assets set forth herein, the Court finds that neither party will have any debt. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Marriage of West
green
2 sentences2016It includes all factors affecting need and the ability to pay.” (In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240, 246 .) The requirement that there be a showing of a material change of circumstances is “to prevent parties from relitigating issues that the court has previously addressed.” (In re Marriage of Freitas (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1059 , 1071- 1072.) “Whether a modification of a spousal support order is warranted depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” (In re Marriage of Hoffmeister (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 351, 357 .) In deciding a motion to modify a spousal support order 2013(In re Marriage of Mosley, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1386 ; In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240, 246 .) Ms. Smith argues the trial court failed to consider the factors in Family Code section 4320: “In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances: [¶] (a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, taking into account all of the following: [¶] (1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market for those skills; the t | 2 | 2013–2016 |
Marriage of Deluca
green
1 sentence2023(In re Marriage of Deluca (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 184 , 195 (Deluca).) The court in In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 481 examined the meaning of “documented evidence” in section 4325, subdivision (b), which allows a convicted spouse to rebut the presumption against an award of spousal support by documented evidence of domestic violence perpetrated by the other spouse. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Marriage of Brewster and Clevenger
green
1 sentence2023(In re Marriage of Deluca (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 184 , 195 (Deluca).) The court in In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 481 examined the meaning of “documented evidence” in section 4325, subdivision (b), which allows a convicted spouse to rebut the presumption against an award of spousal support by documented evidence of domestic violence perpetrated by the other spouse. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Benach v. County of Los Angeles
green
2 sentences2023(Meridian v. Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 684; Benach, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852 .) However, we discern no error on our review of the record. “ ‘In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 2023(Meridian v. Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 684; Benach, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852 .) However, we discern no error on our review of the record. “ ‘In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Marriage of Clements
green
1 sentence2016(In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1235 .) Those statutory factors include (1) “[t]he extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living 6 At oral argument, the parties agreed that the hearing—transcribed in a four-page reporter’s transcript—was approximately six minutes in duration. 9 established during the marriage”; (2) the supporting party’s ability to pay support, based upon his or her “earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets, and standard of living”; (3) the parties’ respective needs, “based on the sta | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Marriage of Hoffmeister
green
1 sentence2016It includes all factors affecting need and the ability to pay.” (In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240, 246 .) The requirement that there be a showing of a material change of circumstances is “to prevent parties from relitigating issues that the court has previously addressed.” (In re Marriage of Freitas (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1059 , 1071- 1072.) “Whether a modification of a spousal support order is warranted depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” (In re Marriage of Hoffmeister (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 351, 357 .) In deciding a motion to modify a spousal support order | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Freitas v. Freitas
green
1 sentence2016It includes all factors affecting need and the ability to pay.” (In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240, 246 .) The requirement that there be a showing of a material change of circumstances is “to prevent parties from relitigating issues that the court has previously addressed.” (In re Marriage of Freitas (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1059 , 1071- 1072.) “Whether a modification of a spousal support order is warranted depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” (In re Marriage of Hoffmeister (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 351, 357 .) In deciding a motion to modify a spousal support order | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Marriage of Shaughnessy
green
1 sentence2016(In re Marriage of Shaughnessy (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1235 .) Those statutory factors include (1) “[t]he extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living 6 At oral argument, the parties agreed that the hearing—transcribed in a four-page reporter’s transcript—was approximately six minutes in duration. 9 established during the marriage”; (2) the supporting party’s ability to pay support, based upon his or her “earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets, and standard of living”; (3) the parties’ respective needs, “based on the sta | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Lincoln v. Barringer
green
1 sentence2015However, to support his contentions, husband does not provide any citations to the record in the argument section of his briefs, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).5 (See City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239 .) As an appellant, husband “must do more 5 California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1) reads, in pertinent part: “Each brief must: [¶] . . . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Marriage of Blazer
green
1 sentence2015(In re Marriage of Blazer (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1442 ; In re Marriage of de Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 .) Case law has recognized the court may consider other factors enumerated in section 4320 when making a temporary spousal support order. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Guigne v. Guigne
green
1 sentence2015(In re Marriage of Blazer (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1442 ; In re Marriage of de Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1366 .) Case law has recognized the court may consider other factors enumerated in section 4320 when making a temporary spousal support order. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Khera v. Sameer
green
1 sentence2015(Id., subds. (c), (d).) At the time of the permanent spousal support order in 2009,10 Husband's average monthly income was $8,578, and Husband's average monthly expenses were $6,182 — leaving Husband with net expendable income of $2,396.11 In support of his RFO in 2013, Husband's average monthly income was $11,197, and Husband's average monthly expenses were $7,834 — leaving Husband with net expendable income of $3,363.12 Thus, in 2013, even considering Husband's obligations associated with his new family in San Diego and the repayment of his student loan, Husband had on average $976 more in m | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF McCANN
green
1 sentence2015We begin with the understanding that, for purposes of modifying 7 support, a "[c]hange of circumstances means a reduction or increase in the supporting spouse's ability to pay and/or an increase or decrease in the supported spouse's needs." (McCann, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 982 .) The supporting party's ability to pay and the supported spouse's needs, of course, are among the factors the court is required to consider under section 4320. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Marriage of Wittgrove
green
1 sentence2014(Marriage of Wittgrove, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1327 .) Review of the trial court’s remarks indicates that it felt the marital standard of living was an issue which required further discovery based upon Husband’s representations that the parties spent far beyond their means. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Marriage of Mosley
green
1 sentence2013(In re Marriage of Mosley, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1386 ; In re Marriage of West (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 240, 246 .) Ms. Smith argues the trial court failed to consider the factors in Family Code section 4320: “In ordering spousal support under this part, the court shall consider all of the following circumstances: [¶] (a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage, taking into account all of the following: [¶] (1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market for those skills; the t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.