Where the record amply demonstrated that defendant’s request for reduction of child support payments was not prompted by a desire to evade his responsibility, and the order of the trial judge did not relieve defendant of all responsibility, and the order of the trial judge did not relieve defendant of all responsibility for child support for the period in question; the defendant’s temporary cessation of income, although incurred voluntarily, but in good faith, prompted the trial judge, in the exercise of judgment and discretion to enter the order reducing his child support payments, thus, there was no abuse of discretion.
See Also: Divorce Lawyers San Diego
Child support payments may properly be abated or reduced where an inability to pay results from involuntary loss of employment, but such relief should be temporary in nature in the sense that the petitioning party should be required within a reasonable time to establish that continued unemployment was in good faith; i.e., was the result of mental or physical disability or unsuccessful attempts to obtain other employment.
Where wife had a high school education, four minor children, was permanently disabled, and had received no formal training in job skills and where husband’s unemployment was not involuntary, award of $1,000 per month maintenance was not an abuse of discretion.
The party seeking modification of maintenance has the burden of demonstrating that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred.
In an action for the modification of maintenance, proof of need and proof of a change in circumstances are not separate and distinct issues; the need of the recipient spouse is one of the circumstances the court is to consider in determining the original award of maintenance. Similarly, a change in the need of the recipient spouse would be a circumstance to be considered in determining whether an award should be modified, and the burden of establishing such a change in the need rests with the movant.
While proof of sexual conduct between spouse receiving maintenance and the person with whom the spouse is living is no longer necessary to establish cohabitation on a conjugal basis, something more than merely living with another person of the opposite sex is required.
A conjugal relationship does not require sexual conduct; an impotent male is capable of a conjugal relationship.
While the term “cohabitation” means living together as husband and wife, but does not necessarily imply sexual intercourse, “conjugal basis implies the assertion of the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife;’ thus continuing sexual intercourse must occur between parties one of whom is receiving maintenance payments from an ex-spouse before the pertinent provision of subsection (b) of this section is triggered.
Out-of-wedlock intercourse can be proved by circumstantial evidence, but the law requires either direct or circumstantial evidence of sexual conduct before maintenance payments can be terminated.
Requiring evidence of sexual conduct does not pose a public policy problem as to the standard of proof.
This statute contemplates acts of sexual intercourse as part of the conjugal husband-wife relationship which it seeks to describe.
The trial court erred when it refused to allow an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining whether there was a sufficient change of circumstances to allow modification of the divorce decree where the separation agreement did not expressly preclude or limit modification of its terms.
An increase in the child’s needs can be presumed on the basis that the child has grown older and the cost of living has risen.
If a former spouse’s increased ability to pay is shown, the fact that the child receiving support has grown older and the cost of living has risen are proper bases for establishing increased need under this section.
Since subsection (a) of this section codifies previous case law by requiring a showing of a substantial change in circumstances before a support order can be modified, cases determined prior to the new Act are relevant in determining what disposition should be made with respect to child support cases.
Where the trial court did not have evidence of the valuation of the exclusive possession of the marital home for five years, the current values of the pension plans and Individual Retirement Account, the values of the automobiles, and the value of furniture and furnishings, the case had to be remanded for the purpose of receiving evidence concerning these marital assets and then to apportion them in equitable proportions.
Subdivision (c)(2) of this section limits required evidence of appreciation of non-marital property to contributions of personal effort.
Fairness required both parties to share equally in appreciation or depreciation of marital residence, subject to a credit to wife for mortgage payments and improvements.
Where appreciation in value of a stock trust was not due to an addition of marital funds, but was due to economic factors, the appreciation was non-marital property.
Evidence which monetized the value of husband’s contribution to the appreciation of farmstead devised to wife during marriage did not warrant his ward of 30% of the appreciation in value of 51 acre portion of farmstead, and remand was thus proper.
The appreciation on stocks acquired during the marriage is marital property.
