Gruen v. Gruen
191 Cal. App. 4th 627
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Deborah Goodman Gruen and Arthur Gruen married in 1989; Deborah sought legal separation and OSC for support in 2007.
- The parties had four children aged roughly 10–16 at the initial OSC hearing; Deborah had stayed home since 2004.
- In 2007, the parties entered a stipulation giving Deborah custody and arranging funding for Deborah’s and the children’s expenses, including housing and legal costs.
- Arthur, a physician with substantial income, faced an OSC/related actions; Deborah alleged significant lifestyle and expense disparities.
- In August 2008, the court ordered interim support and housing-related payments, with Yip appointed to aid income analysis; a final Yip report followed in 2009.
- Throughout 2008–2009, multiple hearings addressed ongoing support, arrears, and the possibility of retroactive modification, with the court reserving jurisdiction for potential adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive modification of temporary support is permissible. | Gruen argues retroactive modification violates statute. | Gruen contends court retained authority to modify retroactively. | Retroactive modification of a pendente lite order is forbidden. |
| Whether prospective modification lacked a pending modification motion or OSC. | Gruen asserts no pending modification motion/OSC existed. | Gruen argues the court could modify pending Yip report outcomes. | Prospective modification required a pending motion or OSC. |
| Whether the August 1, 2008 order was enforceable and final. | Gruen treated August 1 order as enforceable interim order. | Gruen contends order was not final/appealable. | August 1, 2008 order was final and appealable; retroactive change not allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Murray, 101 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal.App. Dist. 2002) (retroactive modification of support barred; waivers ineffective)
- In re Marriage of Tavares, 151 Cal.App.4th 620 (Cal.App. Dist. 2007) (bright-line rule that accrued child support cannot be retroactively adjusted)
- In re Marriage of Van Sickle, 68 Cal.App.3d 728 (Cal.App. Dist. 1977) (prospective modification requires proper procedural steps)
- In re Marriage of Skelley, 18 Cal.3d 365 (Cal. 1976) (temporary/commercial relevance of pendente lite orders; direct appealability)