Marriage of Csupo CA2/1, B263058

Background

Bret and Gabor Csupo divorced in 2010; they executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated into the dissolution judgment that set base monthly child and spousal support and an “Excess Income” mechanism to increase support if Gabor’s quarterly income exceeded a threshold.
The MSA did not define “income” and attached a DissoMaster exhibit that calculated base support using only wages/salary (no capital gains).
Gabor sold two properties after the MSA (Highland in 2011 and Louise in 2012) and realized substantial capital gains; Bret later sought arrearages claiming those gains should have been counted as “income.”
Bret filed motions for modification and for arrearages in 2013–2014; the trial court held a bench trial, considered extrinsic evidence about the parties’ intent, and concluded the parties did not intend capital gains from real estate sales to be included as “income” under the Excess Income provisions.
The trial court denied Bret’s arrears claim (except for a small 2013 amount already paid), modified child support prospectively (including assumed return on realized gains in calculating new income), and ordered procedures on tax treatment of residuals; Bret appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the term “income” in the MSA’s Excess Income provisions unambiguously includes capital gains from property sales	Bret: “Income” is clear and includes capital gains under Family Code and precedent, so arrears are due	Gabor: “Income” was intended to mean earnings/residuals (fluctuating monthly income), not one-time capital gains; DissoMaster and MSA support that	The term is ambiguous; extrinsic evidence properly admitted and supports Gabor’s interpretation; no arrears except small paid amount
Whether the MSA violated public policy by excluding capital gains from child support calculations	Bret: Excluding capital gains effectively contracts away children’s right to support and is against public policy	Gabor: The MSA expressly allowed court modification of child support; parties did not bind the court and the court retained discretion	Court: No public policy violation; MSA permitted modification and court exercised discretion to consider gains when modifying support
Whether the trial court erred in admitting/considering extrinsic evidence to interpret the MSA	Bret: Agreement was unambiguous so extrinsic evidence was improper	Gabor: MSA was ambiguous; extrinsic evidence is admissible to ascertain parties’ intent	Court: Term was ambiguous; extrinsic evidence admissible and, where conflicting, findings reviewed for substantial evidence; trial court’s factual findings supported
Whether Bret may challenge tax-order regarding residuals on appeal	Bret: Trial court should not have ordered Gabor to pay taxes on residuals before paying her share	Gabor: Bret requested clarification and did not object below	Court: Bret requested the clarification (or did not object) below and thus waived appellate challenge

Key Cases Cited

Bill Signs Trucking, LLC v. Signs Family Ltd. P’ship, 157 Cal.App.4th 1515 (extrinsic evidence admissible when contract language is reasonably susceptible to interpretation)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Co., 69 Cal.2d 33 (1968) (parol/extrinsic evidence admissible to prove meaning reasonably susceptible from instrument)
In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith, 223 Cal.App.3d 33 (1990) (mechanisms adding bonus/extra income to fixed support)
In re Marriage of Pearlstein, 137 Cal.App.4th 1361 (2006) (trial court discretion to include proceeds from asset sales in child support under certain circumstances)
In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (2001) (agreement attempting to limit court’s child-support authority may be unenforceable)
In re Marriage of Bonds, 24 Cal.4th 1 (2000) (appellate review principles — resolve evidentiary conflicts in favor of prevailing party)
Marriage of Trearse, 195 Cal.App.3d 1189 (1987) (extrinsic evidence allowed to interpret ambiguous marital settlement provisions)