In Re Marriage of Kacik

Good Law
101 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745·179 Cal. App. 4th 410
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 2009G041274California6,688 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

A spousal support order was scheduled to step down to zero in mid-February 2008. The trial court modified the order to keep the spousal support at the level it had been prior to mid-February 2008, based on the “change of circumstances” that a child support order had terminated 17 months earlier. The trial court’s authority for doing so was Family Code section 4326, a relatively new statute in the Family Code. The supporting spouse has brought this appeal from the order of modification.

There are times when the definition of “is” really makes a difference. This case is one of them. The key word in section 4326 is . . . is.

Section 4326 provides that:

the termination of child support because the child reaches the age of majority constitutes a change of circumstance that “may be the basis for a request for modification of spousal support.”

This is a case of first impression. The question of first impression is what the Legislature meant by the words “if a companion child support order is in effect,” and particularly what it meant by the phrase, “is in effect.” Or, put another way: How much time can elapse before is becomes was?

As we explain in detail below, the phrase…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.