 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Meteer3/12/2003
one which is truly personal to the parties.' [Citation.] In awarding spousal support, the court must consider the mandatory guidelines of section 4320. 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. [Citation.] `Because trial courts have such broad discretion, appellate courts must act with cautious judicial restraint in reviewing these orders.' [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Kerr (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 87, 93.)
In his opening appellate brief, Husband does not mention his ability to pay. The supporting party's ability to pay spousal support is the third in a list of 13 factors Family Code section 4320 requires the court to consider in determining the amount of spousal support. Instead, Husband essentially attempts to re-try the issue of spousal support. We have reviewed all the evidence, perceive the award as appropriate under the circumstances, including Wife's work history outside the home and in raising the children, and the disparate financial status of the parties, including Husband's separate property estate, including a stock portfolio worth over $1 million, his $13,333 per month employment income, other taxable monthly income of $9,260, and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
IV.
Husband asserts the court wrongly calculated spousal and child support by imputing to him income from his stock portfolio (valued at $1,437,000) at the rate of six percent without taking into account the costs of sale Husband would incur to convert the stock to cash, including capital gains tax liability. Husband does not say he will have to convert his stock portfolio to cash. His holdings had historically generated income averaging around eight percent.
The trial court imputed six percent income pursuant to Wife's newspaper exhibit admitted into evidence with Husband's counsel's agreement, subject to later economic changes affecting the rates. The "Deposit & Consumer Loan Rates Chart" newspaper advertisement listed information collected January 5, 2001, from 19 lending institutions. The rates for certificates of deposit ranged from 4.30 to 6.75, depending on amount of money, length of deposit, and lender. Husband now belittles Wife's reliance on "a newspaper advertisement to establish her case."
Husband says his testimony that his tax basis in these assets was only twenty-five to thirty-three percent of their then total value was undisputed. That does not mean it was believed by the trial court. Husband was quite vague with most of his responses to financial queries.
In 1999, Husband's medical partnership of three added a fourth partner. Husband reduced his weekday schedule from four to three and a half days, reducing his salary draw by $20,000 to $25,000 for the extra half day off. Although the trial court made no express finding that Husband had artificially reduced his work week or with respect to Husband's earning capacity, the record is full of evidence establishing his ability to earn.
In sum, given the evidence before the court at the time it rendered its decision, we find no abuse of discretion in its not deducting costs of sale from Husband's income-earning stock portfolio.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (further judgment on reserved issues) filed June 20, 2001, is affirmed. Wife is entitled to her costs on appeal
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
We concur:
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
MALLANO, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|