In Re Marriage of Bower

Wife unsuccessfully appeals from orders reducing and then terminating spousal support and denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs. She contends that the trial court (1) erroneously applied Family Code section 4323 (presumption of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex), (2) failed to give adequate reasons for its order reducing and terminating spousal support, and (3) abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees and costs.

Notwithstanding the manner in which the contentions are phrased, in reality appellant asks us to reweigh the evidence and substitute our discretion for that of the trial court. As we have previously indicated, these are not legitimate functions of the Court of Appeal. (In re Marriage of Martin (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1196, 1200 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 565 ]; Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1448-1449 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 ].) We again lament, “no one seems to listen.” (In re Marriage of Martin, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1200 .)

1995 Order

The parties’ 15-year marriage was dissolved in October 1995. Husband was ordered to pay $1,700 per month spousal support. At that…