When handling divorce cases, particularly in California, one critical issue is whether to terminate or retain the court’s jurisdiction to award spousal support in the future. This decision isn’t about whether to initially award support or terminate existing support. Rather, the question turns on whether the court can modify spousal support down the line. Let’s break down this complex issue in a way that’s clear and actionable for family law attorneys.
The Core Issue: Terminating vs. Retaining Jurisdiction
Termination or Retention of Jurisdiction is all about whether the court maintains the power to modify spousal support orders in the future. Even if no support is awarded initially or it’s set to end on a certain date, the court might still keep the option open to order support later if the recipient needs it and the payor can afford it. Conversely, some parties prefer to eliminate the court’s authority to award future support, especially after a long marriage.
Strategic Considerations in Support Termination
Support Termination Strategy
If you want to ensure one spouse gets support with no chance for the other spouse to claim spousal support in the future, you must terminate the court’s jurisdiction over spousal support. This is especially crucial after a lengthy marriage.
For example, in a marriage of thirty-three years, the attorney representing the supported spouse must explain the consequences of terminating spousal support and the risks of waiving future claims. This explanation should be in writing, and the client should affirm their decision in writing with unambiguous language. Attorneys could even question the client in the presence of the Judge. Such a process ensures the client fully understands their decision.
If the parties exchange additional property for waiving spousal support or setting a termination date, the agreement must clearly state the consideration and the absolute termination of jurisdiction. While appellate courts emphasize the duty of the supported spouse to become self-supporting, they rarely uphold a trial court’s order enforcing a termination date without explicit language divesting the court of jurisdiction to modify and extend spousal support beyond that date.
Legal Framework and Key Cases
Specified Termination Dates:
When an agreement includes modifiable spousal support until a specified termination date, courts may interpret it as allowing support to extend past that date unless the agreement explicitly states otherwise. Hence, clarity in drafting is crucial to avoid unintended extensions of support.
Numerous Court of Appeal decisions, such as In re Marriage of Vomacka (1984) 36 Cal.3d 459 and In re Marriage of Brown (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 785, emphasize the necessity of expressly divesting the court of jurisdiction to extend support beyond a termination date. Failure to do so can result in the court retaining jurisdiction, provided a motion to extend is made before the termination date.
For instance, in In re Marriage of Brown, the court found that the superior court retained jurisdiction to modify and extend spousal support because the agreement did not specifically preclude such an extension. This highlights the importance of unequivocal language in spousal support agreements.
Spousal Support Jurisdiction in Short Marriages vs. Lengthy Marriages:
The duration of the marriage significantly influences the court’s approach to terminating spousal support. According to Family Code §4320 (l), in short marriages, spousal support typically aims to enable the supported spouse to become self-supporting within a reasonable period, generally half the length of the marriage.
In short marriages, courts routinely terminate jurisdiction over spousal support, even if the supported spouse might face financial difficulties. However, in lengthy marriages (over ten years), terminating jurisdiction is less common unless it’s clear the supported spouse can meet their financial needs at the termination date. For example, in In re Marriage of Morrison (1978) 20 Cal.3d 437, the court emphasized that for long-term marriages, termination of support should only occur if the supported spouse can maintain a reasonable standard of living post-termination.
Statutory Provisions and Presumptions for Spousal Support Jurisdiction:
Family Code §4336 provides specific guidelines for retaining or terminating jurisdiction in lengthy marriages. It presumes that a marriage lasting ten years or more is of long duration, and thus, the court retains jurisdiction indefinitely unless there’s a written agreement or court order stating otherwise.
Attorneys must be cautious when advising clients to agree to a termination of jurisdiction in lengthy marriages. Without clear evidence that the supported spouse can sustain themselves, it’s prudent to avoid such agreements. If a client insists, the attorney should document their advice against it and fully inform the client.
Practical Tips for Attorneys when Considering Jurisdiction in Spousal Support Decisions
- Clear Drafting: Always use precise language in spousal support agreements. If the intention is to terminate jurisdiction, state it explicitly to avoid future misinterpretations by the court.
- Educate Clients: Ensure clients understand the implications of terminating or retaining jurisdiction over spousal support. Written explanations and court voir dire can safeguard against future disputes and appeals.
- Consideration in Negotiations: When negotiating terms, if the supported spouse receives additional property or benefits in exchange for waiving support, document the consideration and its impact on jurisdiction clearly.
- Tailored Advice: Provide tailored advice based on the marriage’s length and the supported spouse’s ability to become self-supporting. In long-term marriages, advise against terminating jurisdiction unless the client can unequivocally meet their financial needs.
- Review Case Law: Stay updated on relevant case law and appellate decisions that might influence the interpretation of spousal support agreements and termination dates.
Conclusion
Navigating the complexities of terminating or retaining jurisdiction to award spousal support requires a thorough understanding of legal principles, careful drafting, and clear communication with clients. By adhering to these best practices, family law attorneys can effectively advocate for their clients’ interests while minimizing the risk of future litigation.