Marriage of Daneman CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2021A159773California3,845 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Husband and Wife filed a stipulated judgment of dissolution in May 2011, which was accompanied by an attachment and a May 2006 marital settlement agreement (MSA). According to the MSA, the parties were married in 1977, and Wife filed the dissolution action in 1996. The MSA divided the marital property, and provided that Wife would receive certain investment income from Husband and would not seek spousal support from Husband unless he failed to make the investment income

1 payments, if he bore responsibility for that failure. The attachment to the 2011 stipulated judgment specified that Husband would pay Wife $1,277 per month. During 2019, Husband failed to make a number of the monthly payments, and, in August 2019, Wife petitioned for an order of postjudgment spousal support. Husband opposed the request, and the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 2, 2020 that included testimony from Husband, Wife, and an expert retained by Wife. On January 8, 2020, the trial court entered an order granting Wife’s request for spousal support, ordering Husband to pay her $3,000 per month, commencing in September 2019 “and continuing until Wife’s death or remarriage,…

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.