DISCUSSION

The trial court may modify a spousal support order when there is a material change of circumstances. (Fam. Code, § 3651.) Douglas's retirement constituted a material change of circumstances. Whether a modification of a spousal support order is warranted depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We will not disturb the trial court's determination unless an abuse of discretion is shown. (In re Marriage of Olson (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) The trial court abuses its discretion if, considering all the relevant circumstances, the court has exceeded the bounds of reason or it can fairly be said that no judge would reasonably make the same order under the same circumstances. (Ibid.) In determining the amount of support, the trial court was required to consider the supporting spouse's ability to pay in light of "earned and unearned income." (Fam. Code, § 4320, subd. (c).) Douglas receives monthly income that includes both interest income ($10,350) and principal payments ($4,900) from annuities. "The existence and not the source of sums of money . . . is the relevant factor." (In re Marriage of Olson, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) A court may consider investment income in assessing a party's ability to pay support, and Douglas does not challenge the trial court's decision to consider the $10,350 interest income payments. (In re Marriage of Reynolds (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1380.) But Douglas contends it is unfair to include the $4,900 in principal payments because he could have protected that separate property principle by investing it differently. He points out that his investment in annuities maximized interest income, to Gloria's benefit. That may be true, but the trial court's decision to include the principle payments was well within its discretion. Trial courts have broad discretion to include, exclude, or partially include retirement plan contributions, earnings, and accruals that are not withdrawn as income available for determining the amount to be ordered for spousal support. (In re Marriage of Olson, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 3, 13.) The discretion to include principle that is not withdrawn is limited only if the supporting spouse has not

3 reached retirement age (59 1/2). In such case, the withdrawal would be subject to a tax penalty. (Id. at p. 13.) Douglas, however, is 70 years old.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

4 Mark S. Borrell, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Roni Keller for Appellant. Gloria McKarus, in pro. per., for Respondent.

5