 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Chambers11/17/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Gaelyn Chambers appeals from an order modifying spousal support and ordering a step-down of support effective June 1, 2004 with automatic step-downs to June 1, 2008. There was no abuse of discretion and we affirm the order.
Facts and Procedural History
Donald Chambers (husband) and Gaelyn Chambers (wife) separated in 1997 following a 21 year marriage. They have three children. Two are in college and the youngest is a high school junior.
In 1997, husband owned a 23.5 percent partnership interest in Mercer Global Advisors (MGA), a financial planning company. The partnership interest, in the form of MGA stock, was valued at $3,489,750.
Husband and wife entered into a March 9, 1999 stipulated judgment for property division. Wife was awarded, among other things, husband's 401K retirement plan (approximately $160,000), the family residence, and a $707,000 equalizing payment. Husband assumed the mortgage debt on the family residence and was awarded the MGA stock and some undeveloped property.
After judgment was entered, MGA terminated husband's employment. Husband negotiated a severance package that included a consulting agreement ($225,000), a personal injury settlement ($822,154), a non-competition agreement, ($496,000), and the buy out of his MGA stock ($4,035,000). Husband received four MGA promissory notes that were amortized over ten years.
The 1999 judgment reserved jurisdiction over support issues which were tried in March 2000. The trial court found that husband's interest income was $33,000 per month and that his self-employment was $15,666 per month. Wife's imputed income was $2,000 a month and $2,708 a month from investments. Husband was ordered to pay $12,700 a month spousal support and $6,531 a month child support. Child support was reduced to $3,754 on September 20, 2000, after the second oldest child graduated from high school.
In 2001, husband brought a motion to reduce support because he was no longer receiving consulting income and his interest income on the promissory notes had dropped. The trial court denied the motion, finding no material change of circumstances.
In November 2002, husband brought a second motion to modify support on the ground that his interest income had declined by 40 percent. Wife was unemployed and had a teaching credential and a masters degree in education. She was attending graduate school to earn a certificate as an MFCC.
The trial court said that there was "no material change in circumstances." It ordered husband to continue paying $3,754 a month child support until June 2004 when the youngest child graduates from high school.
With respect to spousal support, the trial court found that wife should seek employment. The trial court stated that wife has "a master's degree in education and going for a master's in MFCC. I'm not sure which one has the earning capacity she needs. Either one should be sufficient." The trial court found that the existing support order "has been making it too easy not to [get employment]. However, based on the standard of living in this family, it is in the best interests of the minor child Matthew, a junior in high school, and two unmarried daughters in college, that the Wife not be forced out on the marketplace immediately. The minor son needs attention. Th
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|