Freitas v. Freitas
209 Cal. App. 4th 1059
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Christine petitioned for dissolution in April 2010; at Oct 2010 hearing, court granted Kevin temporary spousal support and Christine temporary child support, reserving jurisdiction to amend and allowing Kevin to present income evidence for Sept–Oct 2010.
- In June 2011 the court found Gruen limited its jurisdiction to retroactively modify pendente lite support and determined it lacked authority to amend Sept–Oct 2010 for Christine’s income; it also terminated Kevin’s temporary spousal support under section 4325 due to Kevin’s 2006 domestic violence conviction.
- Kevin argued the trial court erred in terminating spousal support under 4325 because the changed circumstances rule precluded modification and that Gruen did not bar reconsideration since jurisdiction was reserved.
- The court held the changed circumstances rule did not bar termination under 4325 given unusual circumstances, public policy against domestic violence, and belated application of 4325; the error in Gruen’s application was harmless for spousal support but reversible as to Sept–Oct 2010 child support.
- Remand was ordered to allow amendment of the Sept–Oct 2010 child support award based on additional evidence of Christine’s income; finality analysis distinguished Gruen on reserved jurisdiction to amend.
- On appeal, the court affirmed termination of spousal support (July 1, 2011) and reversed the Gruen-based preclusion for child support, remanding for possible amendment of Sept–Oct 2010 child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the changed circumstances rule barred termination of spousal support under 4325. | Kevin argues no change of circumstances; 4325 precluded termination. | Freitas contends 4325 and domestic violence evidence justify termination. | Termination affirmed; 4325 applied belatedly but valid. |
| Whether Gruen precluded amendment of pendente lite support despite reserved jurisdiction. | Kevin: Gruen does not apply because court reserved jurisdiction to amend. | Christine: Gruen bars retroactive amendments absent pending motion. | Gruen did not bar amendment; error harmless for spousal, remand for child. |
| Whether the trial court could amend Sept–Oct 2010 child support based on Christine’s income evidence. | Kevin: reservation allowed post-Oct 2010 consideration; Gruen not controlling. | Gruen precluded retroactive changes absent pending motion. | Remand allowed to consider amendment for Sept–Oct 2010 child support. |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to terminate spousal support after Oct 2010 hearing. | Kevin: reserved jurisdiction negates termination. | Court could terminate under 4325 given DV conviction and lack of rebuttal. | Proper under 4325; termination affirmed. |
| Whether the October 6, 2010 order was final as to Sept–Oct 2010 amounts and appealability. | Kevin: orders were final; Gruen barred amendments. | Orders not final for Sept–Oct 2010 due to reservation to amend. | June 6, 2011 order not final for Sept–Oct 2010; Gruen analysis distinguished; remand possible. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Gruen, 191 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. App. 4th 2011) (retroactive modification of pendente lite support generally prohibited; finality concerns; Gruen distinguishes reserved jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Cauley, 138 Cal.App.4th 1100 (Cal. App. 4th 2006) (public policy against domestic violence; 4325 presumption; entitlement to relief)
- In re Marriage of Wittgrove, 120 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (domestic violence history considered in temporary spousal support; framework for 4320, 4325)
- In re Marriage of Baker, 3 Cal.App.4th 491 (Cal. App. 1992) (flexibility of changed circumstances rule; exception when equitable modification warranted)
- In re Marriage of Stanton, 190 Cal.App.4th 547 (Cal. App. 2010) (unusual circumstances allowing modification despite typical rule)
- In re Marriage of Murray, 101 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal. App. 2002) (changed circumstances analysis; temporary orders understand finality)
- In re Marriage of Skelley, 18 Cal.3d 365 (Cal. 1976) (one final judgment rule and appealability context for temporary orders)