Marriage of Patrino, In re
| Decision Date | 21 December 1973 |
| Citation | 111 Cal.Rptr. 367,36 Cal.App.3d 186 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Thelma and Leo PATRINO. Thelma PATRINO, Appellant, v. Leo PATRINO, Respondent. Civ. 31182. |
Little, Evans, Zoller & White by James B. Little, Frederick C. Phillips, San Jose, for appellant.
Burnett, Burnett, Keough, Cali & Bishop by Mark C. Cali, San Jose, for respondent.
Wife appeals from an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting spousal support to one year and failing to retain jurisdiction to extend it.
At trial it was established that Husband, who was to retain custody of the three minor children pursuant to stipulation, netted an average of approximately $1,060 monthly income, from which he estimated payment of current expenses at $700 (a conservative estimate in view of his custody of three children). Wife, who had worked for only a small portion of the 26-year marriage as a psychiatric technician in a state hospital some 15 years before, would have had to receive renewed training to reenter that line of work. She testified to a vague heart problem, which was not verified by any medical evidence at trial and indicated that the emotional distress of the dissolution proceedings had prevented her from actively seeking employment since the separation of the parties.
After ascertaining from Wife that it was her desire to find a job, the trial court ordered that Husband immediately pay her the sum of $250 in spousal support and that he then pay her the sum of $200 per month for two months and $100 per month for nine months thereafter, at which time support was to terminate. The court also ordered that Husband, who was awarded the home and most of the furnishings of the parties, pay Wife the sum of $10,000 cash, together with a promissory note for $10,000 to be due in three years, as her share of the community property.
The trial court's discretion with regard to the amount And duration of spousal support is broad, and only a clear abuse of that discretion will justify a reversal. (See McClellan v. McClellan (1958), 159 Cal.App.2d 225, 228, 323 P.2d 811, disapproved on other grounds in Cardew v. Cardew (1961), 192 Cal.App.2d 502, 510, 13 Cal.Rptr. 620.) Considering the total circumstances before the court in this case, including the needs of the parties and abilities to meet such needs (see Millington v. Millington (1968), 259 Cal.App.2d 896, 67 Cal.Rptr. 128), and with particular consideration to Wife's expressed desire to return to work and the substantial liquid portion of community property to be received, there is no indication that the court's decision 'exceeds the bounds of reason' as discussed in Brawman v. Brawman (1962), 199 Cal.App.2d 876, 880, 19 Cal.Rptr. 106.
The financial circumstances of the parties in the present case are quite distinguishable from the circumstances discussed in In re Marriage of Rosan (1972), 24 Cal.App.3d 885, 101 Cal.Rptr. 295, where a similar order terminating support without retention of jurisdiction to extend it was found to be unreasonable. In that case, the parties had been accustomed to a high standard of living...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Kelley, In re
... ... 619 and In re Marriage of Patrino (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 186, 111 Cal.Rptr. 367); (2) determination of the issue of first impression concerning the treatment of future social security old age and survivor benefits funded by employee taxes during marriage as community property; and (3) determination of the propriety of a trial court ... ...
-
Marriage of Powers, In re
... ... (7) The conduct of a party seeking maintenance during the marriage.' ... 5 Subsequent California appellate decisions have distinguished Rosan where there had not been a high standard of living during the marriage and the husband did not have a large income. In re Marriage of Patrino, 36 Cal.App.3d 186, 111 Cal.Rptr. 367 (1974); In re Marriage of Dennis, 35 Cal.App.3d 279, 110 Cal.Rptr. 619 (1973), and where the wife was a doctor with a substantial income of ... ...
-
Marriage of Vomacka, In re
... ... (Id., 20 Cal.3d, at pp. 443, 452-453, 143 Cal.Rptr. 139, 573 P.2d 41.) At the same time, we disapproved another line of cases, exemplified by In re Marriage of Patrino (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 186, 111 Cal.Rptr. 367 and In re Marriage of Lopez (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 93, 113 Cal.Rptr. 58 permitting a trial court to terminate jurisdiction over spousal support after a lengthy marriage even though there has been no showing that the supported spouse will be self-supporting ... ...
-
Marriage of Maxfield, In re
... ... In re Marriage of Morrison, supra, 20 Cal.3d 437, 453, 143 Cal.Rptr. 139, 573 P.2d 41, disapproves the reasoning of In re Marriage of Patrino (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 186, 111 Cal.Rptr. 367, and In re Marriage of Lopez (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 93, 113 Cal.Rptr. 58 (upon which husband relies in part) that Civil Code section 4801, subdivision (d), evidences a policy favoring termination of jurisdiction over spousal support. Unless it is very ... ...