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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2016 0 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 Marriage of Bardzikgreen2 sentences2016(In re Marriage of Bardzik (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1294 [“If one parent seeks to modify an existing order so as to have income imputed to the other parent, the parent seeking imputation—that is, in that context, the parent seeking to overturn the status quo—bears the burden of proof of showing that the other parent has the ability and opportunity to earn that imputed income”] (italics omitted).) 22 Here, the family law court was entitled to conclude the rather bare-bones evidentiary showing Mother made was inadequate to change the status quo and impute income to Father under the three-par 2016(In re Marriage of Bardzik (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1294 [―If one parent seeks to modify an existing order so as to have income imputed to the other parent, the parent seeking imputation—that is, in that context, the parent seeking to overturn the status quo—bears the burden of proof of showing that the other parent has the ability and opportunity to earn that imputed income‖] (italics omitted).) 22 Here, the family law court was entitled to conclude the rather bare-bones evidentiary showing Mother made was inadequate to change the status quo and impute income to Father under the three-par | 2 | 2 |
State of Oregon v. Vargasgreen2 sentences2008(E.g., In re Marriage of Destein (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1392 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 487 ] [“So long as a parent has an earning capacity, that is, the ability and the opportunity to earn income, the trial court may attribute income.”]; State of Oregon v. Vargas (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 229 ] [“This mle has been modified to include only the first and third prongs; thus, the definition of earning capacity is satisfied when the payer has both the ability and opportunity to work.”].) 9 B. 2008(E.g., In re Marriage of Destein (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1392 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 487 ] [“So long as a parent has an earning capacity, that is, the ability and the opportunity to earn income, the trial court may attribute income.”]; State of Oregon v. Vargas (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 229 ] [“This mle has been modified to include only the first and third prongs; thus, the definition of earning capacity is satisfied when the payer has both the ability and opportunity to work.”].) 9 B. | 1 | 1 |
Destein v. Desteingreen2 sentences2008(E.g., In re Marriage of Destein (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1392 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 487 ] [“So long as a parent has an earning capacity, that is, the ability and the opportunity to earn income, the trial court may attribute income.”]; State of Oregon v. Vargas (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 229 ] [“This mle has been modified to include only the first and third prongs; thus, the definition of earning capacity is satisfied when the payer has both the ability and opportunity to work.”].) 9 B. 2008(E.g., In re Marriage of Destein (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1392 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 487 ] [“So long as a parent has an earning capacity, that is, the ability and the opportunity to earn income, the trial court may attribute income.”]; State of Oregon v. Vargas (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 229 ] [“This mle has been modified to include only the first and third prongs; thus, the definition of earning capacity is satisfied when the payer has both the ability and opportunity to work.”].) 9 B. | 1 | 1 |
West v. Industrial Accident Commissiongreen2 sentences2008The “Regnery rule” is essentially a judicial gloss on the words “earning capacity” as they appear in Family Code section 4058, subdivision (b). 8 Citing from a digest of words and phrases and a workers’ compensation case, the Regnery court announced a “three-prong test before the capacity to earn standard may be applied.” The three tests are: “ability to work,” “willingness to work,” and “opportunity to work which means an employer who is willing to hire.” (Regnery, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1372 , citing 14 Words and Phrases (1952) Earning Capacity, pp. 27-28 and West v. Industrial Acc. Com 2008The “Regnery rule” is essentially a judicial gloss on the words “earning capacity” as they appear in Family Code section 4058, subdivision (b). 8 Citing from a digest of words and phrases and a workers’ compensation case, the Regnery court announced a “three-prong test before the capacity to earn standard may be applied.” The three tests are: “ability to work,” “willingness to work,” and “opportunity to work which means an employer who is willing to hire.” (Regnery, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1372 , citing 14 Words and Phrases (1952) Earning Capacity, pp. 27-28 and West v. Industrial Acc. Com | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Regnery
green
2 sentences2008Appellate courts have countered that danger with what might be termed the “Regnery rule,” after In re Marriage of Regnery, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 1367, 1372-1373 . 2008The “Regnery rule” is essentially a judicial gloss on the words “earning capacity” as they appear in Family Code section 4058, subdivision (b). 8 Citing from a digest of words and phrases and a workers’ compensation case, the Regnery court announced a “three-prong test before the capacity to earn standard may be applied.” The three tests are: “ability to work,” “willingness to work,” and “opportunity to work which means an employer who is willing to hire.” (Regnery, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 1372 , citing 14 Words and Phrases (1952) Earning Capacity, pp. 27-28 and West v. Industrial Acc. Com | 1 | 2008–2008 |
County of Yolo v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1997The court had no evidence whatsoever about Ms. Garcia's opportunities to obtain a minimum wage job. (20 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1786-1787 (conc. opn. of Nicholson, J.).) Thus, the existence of employment opportunity under the Regnery test was not satisfied. ( Ibid. ) (1e) None of the factors which the County of Yolo court found so compelling are present here. 1997The court had no evidence whatsoever about Ms. Garcia's opportunities to obtain a minimum wage job. (20 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1786-1787 (conc. opn. of Nicholson, J.).) Thus, the existence of employment opportunity under the Regnery test was not satisfied. ( Ibid. ) (1e) None of the factors which the County of Yolo court found so compelling are present here. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re Marriage of Everett
green
1 sentence1993Thus, under the Agnos Act, the court must consider the earning capacity of a given parent where (1) there is some measurable capacity and (2) it would be in the children’s best interests to do so.” (In re Marriage of Everett, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d 846, 859 .) The court approved the Regnery test, commenting that “[w]hen it comes to the noncustodial supporting parent, deliberate avoidance of family responsibilities is still significant to the earning capacity consideration.” (Id., at p. 860.) The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impute additional income | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Re Marriage of Simpson
green
2 sentences1993(In re Marriage of Simpson, supra, 4 Cal.4th 225, 234 .) Under the Regnery test, the court considers the spouse’s ability to work, willingness to work, and opportunity to work. 1993(In re Marriage of Simpson, supra, 4 Cal.4th 225, 234 .) Under the Regnery test, the court considers the spouse’s ability to work, willingness to work, and opportunity to work. | 1 | 1993–1993 |