The Law Offices of Abbas Hadjian, APC

Tag: Spousal Support

Abbas Hadjian on KIRN: March 9, 2018

برنامه هفتگی قانون خانواده کالیفرنیا به‌‌‌ زبان فارسی قرارهای قبل از ازدواج :۳ موضوع فرزند، همسر، اموال 3 Topics: Children, Spouse, Property

Abbas Hadjian on KIRN: Sept 29, 2017

40 Divorces Which Changed California Family Law
IRMO Berman (2017):Limitations on Right of Retirement
At Age 65 to Reduce Spousal Support (IRMO Reynolds-1998).
Effect of Transfer of Income Producing Business to New Spouse (IRMO Dick-1993)

California: 2002 Prenuptial Agreement Act not Retroactive

Waived Spousal Support in Prenuptial Agreement of 1999, Cannot be Invalidated Based on the 2002 Law

San Diego, California, May 24, 2011: Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One held that a spousal support waiver in the parties’ 1999 premarital agreement cannot be invalidated based on the  Fam. Code, § 1612, subd. (c), enacted in 2002. The court of appeal held that § 1612, subd. (c), requiring legal representation by the spouse who waives the spousal support was a material change in the law as to enforceability of a spousal support waiver and the Legislature did not intend it to apply retroactively.
In addition, there was substantial evidence that the wife entered into the agreement voluntarily, was advised but refrained from obtaining  legal counsel, understood the agreement, and there was no evidence of  duress, fraud, or undue influence. Wife argued that she signed the agreement without the benefit of having an attorney,  under duress of having the preparation for the parties’ wedding was contracted and completed, and that canceling the wedding would have created great embarrassment.
For the complete texts of the Decisions, send an e-mail to Admin.

Courts Report: July 6, 2010

 July 6, 2010, Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Court House: The Court ordered temporary spousal support based on the base hourly income of the Husband plus 35% of any extra payments received by him on a monthly basis. Wife requested monthly support payments based on the Year To Date income of the Husband for the past 6 months. Husband proposed support payment based on his base hourly income plus additional payment at the end of the year. The Court disagreed. The Court stated that the Ostler-Smith Rule (which allows payment of support on a based salary plus percentage of the fluctuated income) applies to any situation where income of a support obligor changes from one month to another.