ACFLS Family Law Blog

In Dietz, the Court held that Laura’s rights to access the retirement accounts on a penalty-free basis and to any increase in their values were insufficient, without more, to constitute a material change of circumstances permitting a reduction in her spousal support under Family Code Section 4320. It seems to me that what the court is saying is that the parties bargained for the event that each of them would be one day receiving retirement benefits, such that it would even out any change in circumstances. The trial court was required to “give effect to” Park’s and Laura’s “intent and reasonable expectations . . . as expressed in the [marital settlement] agreement.” (In re Marriage of Aninger, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 238.)” “The stipulated judgment
expressly acknowledges Park and Laura’s expectations that the value of the subject retirement accounts might increase.” The trial court said the stipulated judgment “…further expressly stated spousal support was based on the parties’ respective incomes. It is undisputed Park’s income had significantly increased since the 1999 stipulated judgment and Laura was unable to work due to her medical condition. In Schmir, the trial court found three material changes of circumstances had occurred since the parties entered a marital settlement agreement requiring the husband to pay $5,800 in monthly spousal support: (1) the wife was “presently employable as a licensed clinical social worker”; (2) the wife’s monthly medical expenses had decreased from $2,000 to $500; and (3) the wife was eligible to withdraw funds from her retirement
account without penalty. (Id. at pp. 46-47.) Two out of three of these findings were not found in Dietz.