In re Marriage of Minkin
11 Cal. App. 5th 939
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Robert and Patricia Minkin divorced by stipulated judgment (2005) that required Robert to pay $7,000/month spousal support through July 15, 2014 and 41% of his "annual bonus" as additional support for 2005–2014, contingent on a bonus award and documentation.
- At divorce, Robert’s compensation from St. Joseph Hospital was salary plus a discretionary annual performance bonus (≤20% of salary); the parties used the additional-spousal-support clause to capture that fluctuating component.
- Robert later worked at Exempla Healthcare with a compensation package including salary, a senior management incentive plan, a 457(f) long‑term incentive, 457(b) deferred comp, change‑of‑control and relocation payments; he paid Patricia 41% of the senior management incentive plan amounts but not of other components.
- Patricia sought arrearages (claiming many Exempla payments were "annual bonuses") and attorney fees under the stipulation; a special master found roughly $219,000 due and recommended $25,000 in fees; trial court adjusted calculations and found ~$203,000 owed but net overpayment of $30,308 after prior payments, and awarded Patricia $30,308 in fees (set off).
- Patricia also moved to reinstate monthly spousal support after the stipulated 10‑year term expired; the trial court denied relief for lack of a material change in circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Patricia's Argument | Robert's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Meaning of "annual bonus" in the stipulated judgment | "Annual bonus" means any payment above base salary (broad definition) | It means a discretionary, performance‑based payment awarded in employer's discretion (narrow Ostler/Smith type) | Court: term ambiguous but substantial evidence supports interpretation as discretionary performance bonus; affirmed (Patricia not entitled to all Exempla components). |
| 2. Entitlement to attorney fees under enforcement clause | Stipulation entitles prevailing party to recover all incurred fees as a matter of law | Prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees as set by the court; court has discretion | Court: clause limits recovery to "reasonable attorney fees as set by the court"; award of $30,308 not an abuse of discretion. |
| 3. Reinstatement of monthly spousal support after 10‑year term | Patricia no longer cohabiting and cannot support herself; support should be reinstated | Parties agreed fixed 10‑year term; no material change shown to warrant reopening | Court: denied—no material change demonstrating need or entitlement; parties' expectation of finite term controls. |
| 4. Due process / evidentiary complaints (cross‑examination limits; declarations vs live testimony for fees) | Court curtailed cross‑examination and prevented live fee testimony, denying fair hearing | Objections were not raised below; procedures were proper for motion/hearing context | Court: claims forfeited by failure to raise below and, on merits, no due process violation; Elkins inapplicable to motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Mosley, 165 Cal.App.4th 1375 (discussing additional support tied to discretionary performance bonuses)
- In re Marriage of Samson, 197 Cal.App.4th 23 (allocation of lump‑sum/severance payments vis‑à‑vis support intent and purpose)
- In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith, 223 Cal.App.3d 33 (describing percentage‑of‑bonus support awards)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (trial court discretion in awarding reasonable attorney fees)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (limits on written‑declaration‑only procedures at trial; court noted inapplicability to motions)
- In re Marriage of Hibbard, 212 Cal.App.4th 1007 (contractual interpretation rules for marital settlement agreements)