In Re the Marriage of Hebbring
207 Cal. App. 3d 1260, 255 Cal. Rptr. 488, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 110 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a marriage of short duration where the supported spouse is in good health and has employment providing adequate self-support, it is an abuse of discretion to retain open-ended jurisdiction over spousal support. Additionally, Civil Code § 4800.2 does not limit a court's equitable discretion to order full reimbursement for post-separation separate property payments made on community obligations.
Facts:
- Jess Hebbring and Cindy Hebbring were married for two years and two months and had no children.
- They separated on January 2, 1984.
- At the time of trial, Cindy had been employed as a law firm office manager for seven years, earning over $20,000 annually with full health insurance benefits.
- Jess Hebbring was a merchant marine with a gross annual income of approximately $41,800.
- During their marriage, the couple acquired a gun collection, the size and value of which were disputed.
- After the couple separated, Jess Hebbring took Cindy's separate property jewelry.
- Jess Hebbring later admitted in a sworn declaration that he had thrown Cindy's jewelry into the sea.
- Following their separation, both Jess and Cindy used their separate property earnings to make payments on pre-existing community debts.
Procedural Posture:
- Cindy Hebbring filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the trial court.
- The trial court granted Cindy temporary spousal support of $500 per month.
- After trial, the court entered a judgment of dissolution which, among other things, ordered spousal support of $500 per month for six months and then retained open-ended jurisdiction over the issue.
- The trial court limited reimbursement for post-separation payments on community debts to the reduction in principal, believing it was bound by Civil Code § 4800.2.
- The trial court valued the community interest in a gun collection at $12,500; neither party requested a statement of decision on this issue.
- The trial court ordered Jess to reimburse Cindy $5,100 from his share of community property for her separate property jewelry that he destroyed.
- Jess Hebbring (appellant) appealed the judgment 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:
Is it an abuse of discretion for a trial court to retain open-ended jurisdiction over spousal support following a short-term marriage where the supported spouse is employed and self-sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
Yes. It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to retain open-ended jurisdiction over spousal support following a short-term marriage where the supported spouse is employed and self-sufficient. The legislative intent behind the Family Law Act is to end the obligations of former spouses where appropriate so they can move on with their lives. In a short-term marriage, where the supported spouse is in good health and has permanent employment providing adequate income for self-support, it is reversible error to retain open-ended jurisdiction. While a short period of transitional support may be appropriate, permanent jurisdiction is not. The court also held that the trial court erred in applying Civil Code § 4800.2 to limit reimbursement for post-separation payments on community debts (Epstein credits). Section 4800.2 was enacted to overturn the 'presumption of gift' rule from In re Marriage of Lucas for pre-separation contributions and does not apply to post-separation payments, where the rationale for presuming a gift no longer exists. Finally, the court affirmed the orders on the gun collection's valuation, as Jess's failure to request a statement of decision invoked the doctrine of implied findings, and upheld the reimbursement order for the destroyed jewelry as a proper exercise of the court's equitable power to remedy a party's 'unclean hands'.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent by being the first to hold that it can be an abuse of discretion not to terminate spousal support jurisdiction, particularly in the context of short-term marriages where the supported spouse is self-sufficient. This clarifies the holding of In re Marriage of Morrison, limiting its application primarily to long-term marriages. The decision also creates a crucial distinction between pre-separation separate property contributions governed by § 4800.2 and post-separation payments for community debts, preserving the broad judicial discretion established in In re Marriage of Epstein to ensure equitable debt allocation. This prevents the statute from creating an unintended injustice and reinforces the family court's power to fully reimburse spouses who maintain community assets after separating.
