198 Cal. App. 4th 373
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- In a 2006 judicially supervised settlement, Martin Bodo was attributed $33,333 monthly income ($400,000 yearly) for calculating child support, yielding $7,000/month.
- Two years later, Martin sought to modify, claiming income drop and that he liquidated assets and borrowed to pay support.
- The trial court found a substantial change in Martin's visitation but no substantial change in income, reducing support from $7,000 to $6,178/month based on increased visitation.
- The parties’ 2006 agreement had stated borrowing to pay the equalization payment did not constitute a change in circumstances for support purposes.
- At trial, evidence showed Martin controlled CPI, loans to him were treated as income for support, and Alii invested the equalizing payment and later used funds for housing; Alii’s and CPI’s finances were scrutinized through expert testimony.
- On appeal, Martin argued the court misapplied the standard (substantial vs material change) and that timeshare changes should be considered in income alteration; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a modification requires a substantial or material change | Martin contends the court should apply a material change standard. | Alii argues the parties’ order required substantial change; court should honor agreement. | Material = Substantial change; court used correct standard. |
| Whether the court was bound by the 2006 agreement | Martin asserts the court must ignore the agreement and apply guideline-based modification. | Alii maintains the agreement forecloses downward modification absent substantial change. | Court could modify despite the agreement; §3651/§4065 permit modification. |
| Whether there was a change in Martin's income justifying modification | Martin asserts income decreased and loans/assets were liquidated affecting ability to pay. | Alii contends income remained effectively unchanged for support purposes. | No adequate change in Martin's income; modification based on timeshare. |
| Whether the change in timeshare alone justifies downward modification | Martin claims increased visitation should not be ignored in income evaluation. | Alii acknowledges timeshare change but disputes its impact on overall financials. | Timeshare increase supported downward adjustment; guideline calculation accounted for it. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. App. 2001) (guideline-based modification framework; change in circumstances required)
- In re Marriage of Alter, 171 Cal.App.4th 718 (Cal. App. 2009) (modification of child support despite agreement; court retains jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Laudeman, 92 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Cal. App. 2001) (stipulated order below guideline can be modified to guideline level with changed circumstances)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 150 Cal.App.4th 1221 (Cal. App. 2007) (upward modification based on undisputed changes in financial conditions)
- In re Marriage of Gruen, 191 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. App. 2011) (material change in circumstances standard language)