In Re Marriage of Meegan
11 Cal. App. 4th 156, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 799 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by modifying or terminating spousal support when the supporting spouse voluntarily changes employment or lifestyle for a bona fide, good-faith reason, not for the purpose of avoiding support obligations, and the court considers the financial needs and abilities of both parties.
Facts:
- Elizabeth and Patrick Meegan were divorced on May 17, 1988, after more than 23 years of marriage.
- At the time of their dissolution, Patrick's net disposable income was $4,700 per month, and Elizabeth's net disposable income was $1,900 per month.
- Patrick was ordered to pay Elizabeth $739 per month in spousal support.
- In early 1991, Patrick decided to pursue a life of religious observance and prayer, resigning his job as a sales executive and entering the Holy Trinity Monastery in St. David, Arizona.
- Patrick supported himself from his savings and continued to contribute $875 per month toward his two adult daughters' college educations and expenses.
- At the time of the modification hearing, Patrick had approximately $4,873 in checking accounts, $16,379 in a savings account, and $73,000 in stock.
- Elizabeth's income had increased to $28,000 per year by the time of the modification hearing, and she had $70,000 in assets, including equity in her home.
Procedural Posture:
- Elizabeth and Patrick Meegan were divorced on May 17, 1988, with a judgment ordering Patrick to pay Elizabeth $739 per month in spousal support.
- On March 22, Patrick filed an order to show cause (OSC) for modification, seeking to terminate his obligation to pay spousal support.
- The trial court entered an order modifying the dissolution judgment, reducing spousal support to zero, but reserved jurisdiction over it. The court also denied Elizabeth's request to create a lien on Patrick's property to secure future payments.
- Elizabeth appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by reducing a spousal support award to zero when the supporting spouse voluntarily resigns a high-paying job to pursue a religious life, provided the court finds the decision was made in good faith and not to shirk support obligations?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the spousal support award to zero when Patrick voluntarily resigned his job to pursue a religious life, because the court found he acted in good faith and not to avoid his support obligations. The court noted that modification of a spousal support order is a matter for the sound exercise of the court’s discretion, requiring a showing of a material change of circumstances since the last order. A bona fide motive leading to a change of circumstances may be the basis for a reduction in spousal support, distinguishing this case from In re Marriage of Sinks where the husband's retirement was an attempt to shirk obligations. The court clarified that earning capacity is considered only when the payor has demonstrated a willful intention to avoid fulfilling financial obligations through deliberate misconduct, a factor absent here according to In re Marriage of Regnery. Deferring to the trial court's credibility findings that Patrick was well-motivated and his testimony credible, the appellate court concluded there was no abuse of discretion. Furthermore, Elizabeth's request for a lien or security for future payments was not considered on appeal because she failed to timely request such remedies in the trial court.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that a voluntary change in employment or lifestyle, even if it drastically reduces income, can constitute a 'material change of circumstances' justifying a modification of spousal support, provided the supporting spouse's motivation is bona fide and not to evade support duties. It reinforces the significant discretion afforded to trial courts in spousal support matters and the high bar for proving an abuse of that discretion. Future cases will likely scrutinize the payor's intent behind voluntary career changes, placing a strong emphasis on whether the change was made in good faith rather than as a deliberate attempt to shirk financial responsibilities. The ruling also implicitly highlights the importance of timely raising all desired remedies, such as liens, at the trial court level.
