Rising

Rising v. Rising

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1033·76 Cal. App. 4th 472·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 380·99 Daily Journal DAR 11941
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 1999No. A084555California2,914 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Parrilli, J.

Based on a finding of changed circumstances, the trial court modified a spousal support order by immediately lowering the amount of support from $3,750 to $3,000 per month. The court further ordered that on July 1, 1999 (approximately 11 months after the date of the order) support was to automatically “step-down” to $2,000 per month and on January 1, 2001, it would automatically decrease to $1,500 per month. Although wife does not challenge the order to the extent it immediately reduces monthly support payments from $3,750 to $3,000, she contends the court erred by ordering future automatic reductions (or step-downs) because there was no evidence she would have decreased needs on July 1, 1999, and January 1, 2001.

*474 We conclude we must reverse the step-down order because the trial court did not give adequate reasons to support it. In this case, the court would have been justified in immediately decreasing the support payments to $1,500 per month. Arguably, the court chose to phase in the reduction over two and one-half years to give wife time to adjust to the decreased support. Had the trial court expressly stated on the record that this is what it was doing, we would…

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.