Hibbard v. Hibbard
212 Cal. App. 4th 1007
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Howard Hibbard and Lydia Hibbard divorced; Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) in 2002 set spousal support at $4,000/month with a nonmodifiable floor of $2,000/month; support could be reduced after the daughter reached 18 and the house was sold, but not below $2,000.
- MSA required voluntary consent and prohibited modification except as expressly provided; spousal support would terminate only on Lydia’s death, Lydia’s remarriage, or Howard’s death.
- Howard later became disabled with PTSD; he sought termination/modification in 2012 arguing changed circumstances and disability.
- Lydia contends she remains financially dependent on support due to her age, earnings, health, and costs; she opposed modification.
- Trial court held it had jurisdiction but found the $2,000 floor binding and nonmodifiable; Howard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $2,000 floor is modifiable | Howard argues changed circumstances justify modification | Lydia argues floor is nonmodifiable by the MSA | Floor is nonmodifiable; MSA sets a binding minimum of $2,000. |
| Whether the court had power to modify despite the MSA | Howard asserts court can modify under statutory jurisdiction | Lydia asserts modification limited by MSA terms | Court’s modification power is constrained by the MSA terms; cannot reduce below $2,000. |
| Whether the MSA effectively waives modification rights | Howard seeks to interpret waiver of modification more broadly | Lydia relies on explicit floor and termination terms | No magic words required; but language unambiguously creates a nonmodifiable floor. |
| Did the court err in relying on Alter or Cesnalis distinctions | Howard contends Alter supports modification under unforeseen disability | Lydia cites Cesnalis to show need for explicit waiver | MSA language here unambiguously fixes a floor and termination only on listed events; Alter is distinguishable. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Rabkin, 179 Cal.App.3d 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (preclusion of modification where agreement reserves nonmodifiable terms in property-related context)
- In re Marriage of Sasson, 129 Cal.App.3d 140 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (nonmodifiable support terms survive remarriage under certain fixtures)
- In re Marriage of Alter, 171 Cal.App.4th 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (floor dependent on inheritance or other streams; not absolute shield from modification)
- Cesnalis, 106 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (remarriage termination requires specific, express written language; extrinsic evidence may resolve waiver issue)
- In re Marriage of Davis, 120 Cal.App.4th 1007 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (illustrates consequences of drafting deficiencies in modifying spousal support)
- In re Marriage of Iberti, 55 Cal.App.4th 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (contract interpretation guiding mutual intent in MSAs)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 29 Cal.App.3d 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972) (consideration of surrounding circumstances in contract interpretation of MSAs)