penaltybx6 said:
My wife and I are married and still live in the state of California. She won't sign the divorce papers unless I pay her alimony. Her reason for alimony is because she want's to go back to school, and she claims that she supported me while I was in school.
She some what emotionally supported me while I was in school, but not financially. The money for school came from my parents. She also brought up another point that "THE PLAN" was to wait until I can earn enough money to support both of us and then she will go back to school. I told her that we could do it that way if she wanted to, but I never said that this was the only option.
I don't understand how she can bring this up because about 5 months ago she got her G.E.D. So in other words I never stopped her from getting her G.E.D, and our financial situation didn't stop her. If she can get her G.E.D while we are married then she could have made an effort to go to college.
My response:
First, "Raddadthomas" doesn't know what he's talking about, and even less so when it comes to California law. Pay no attention to his obsessiveness. And, quite frankly, I'm a little tired of reading his whining, rantings and ravings on these boards. Just read some of his crap on former posts of his, and you'll see what I mean about his "obsessiveness."
Second, California is a "No Fault" Dissolution State, and doesn't require her to "sign the papers" in order for you to obtain a divorce. A judge will hear your case if the two of you cannot agree, and will render a decision concerning not only the issue of Dissolution (which is a certainty under California law, and will be granted), but also the issue of Spousal Support, and whether it's warranted, and if so, for how long and the amount; e.g. monthly payments for a period of months or years, or a lump sum.
The length of marriage prior to separation bears on the fixing of spousal support and retention of spousal support jurisdiction (see Ca Fam §§ 4320, 4336).
Some cases loosely refer to the "one-half the length of the marriage" standard as establishing a presumptively reasonable period to become self-supporting (see Marriage of Rising (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 472, 478, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 380, 385, fn. 9). But that is not what the statute says and, indeed, is contradicted by the statute's express provision that nothing in § 4320(k) is intended to limit the court's discretion to order spousal support for a greater or lesser period of time based on other § 4320 factors, Ca Fam § 4336 (indefinite reservation of spousal support jurisdiction in lengthy marriages), and the parties' circumstances. [Ca Fam § 4320(k)]
Thus, more accurately, one-half the length of the marriage operates as nothing more than a baseline measurement (and it is not even a general baseline in cases of a "lengthy" marriage).
This point is cogently made in a case predating the enactment of § 4320(k):
"[T]here is nothing talismanic about the 'one-half of the married life' concept. It is not an eternal verity or an immutable principle carved in legal stone or etched in judicial steel. It fits some cases, it doesn't fit others. In some cases the wife is not entitled to a dime. In other cases she must be supported for life. Each and every case must be judged on its own merits. A judicial policy cannot be tolerated which affords blind obedience to the idea that the support order be for a period equal to 'one-half of the married life.' In each case the trial court must make a careful and measured judgment reflecting a sound exercise of discretion in the award of spousal support and its duration . . ." [Marriage of Brantner (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 416, 423, 136 Cal.Rptr. 635, 639]
Shorter marriages may be "lengthy":
The statutory presumption does not rule out a finding that less-than-10-year marriages are of "long duration" for purposes of retaining spousal support jurisdiction. [Ca Fam § 4336(b)] After evaluating and weighing the underlying facts and circumstances, trial courts have discretion to determine--without the aid of a presumption--that shorter marriages are "lengthy." [See Marriage of Heistermann (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1195, 1202, 286 Cal.Rptr. 127, 132--retention of jurisdiction rule "can, under proper circumstances, apply equally to a medium length marriage" (8-year, 11-month marriage); Marriage of Baker (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 491, 499, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 553, 557 (marriage just under 10 years)]
Retention of jurisdiction issues in "short-term" marriages:
Ca Fam § 4336 (implied reservation of jurisdiction) does not apply to "short-term" marriages. Nor is there any authority for the proposition that courts must affirmatively retain jurisdiction (i.e., apply the Morrison rule) after a marriage of short duration--even absent evidence the supported spouse will be self-supporting on the targeted termination date. [See Marriage of Bukaty (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 143, 148, 225 Cal.Rptr. 492, 496--"(W)e reject the notion (that Morrison) . . . is applicable to all marriages, regardless of length" (emphasis and parentheses added)]
Quite the contrary, "
n short-term marriages the duration of the marriage considered alone, will usually militate against any but short-term spousal support with a fixed termination date." [Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 645, 663, 235 Cal.Rptr. 587, 595 (emphasis added)--length of marriage is only one factor to be considered, but it is a substantial factor; Marriage of Huntington (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1522, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 6]
Fixed termination not automatically required for short-term marriages; balancing of § 4320 factors:
Even so, the trial court is required to consider all the § 4320 factors in fashioning a spousal support order. [Marriage of Prietsch & Calhoun, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at 663, 235 Cal.Rptr. at 595] Therefore, trial courts need not, on the basis of duration alone, automatically terminate jurisdiction after a relatively short marriage. [Marriage of Bukaty (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 143, 148, 225 Cal.Rptr. 492, 496; Marriage of Heistermann (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1195, 1201, 286 Cal.Rptr. 127, 131 ("medium-length" 8-year, 11-month marriage)]
IAAL