Marriage of Giese CA2/6
B321019A
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 27, 2025Background
- Torrey Kahana Giese (Wife) appealed judgment dissolving her 20-year marriage to Soren Giese (Husband) involving child custody, temporary and permanent spousal/child support, and attorney fees.
- The parties had three children; Wife was not employed outside the home during most of the marriage but gained employment post-separation, while Husband is a highly compensated executive with complex compensation including bonuses and stock units.
- Temporary support orders were entered in November 2018, including base and Ostler-Smith percentage (of income over baseline) components; there were disputes about proper calculation and arrearages.
- The trial was extensively litigated, including significant forensic accounting disputes and custody modifications; Wife filed two writ petitions related to custody procedure.
- The trial court largely adopted Husband’s positions on support calculations and declined to award some attorney fees or costs for Wife’s writs and expert fees, but awarded her 60% of attorney’s fees overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporary spousal support arrearages | Husband owed more arrears; improper calculation/exclusions | Overpayments made; calculation by expert correct | Remand: trial court erred by excluding certain income per order’s broad definition; must recalculate using all forms of income specified in order. |
| Permanent spousal support (Ostler-Smith bonus component) | Award vague; did not clarify which bonus/stock income included | Judgment language adequate | Remand: provision regarding Ostler-Smith bonus compensation is vague; court must clarify types and percentages of income subject to award. |
| Attorney’s fees and costs | Entitled to all attorney fees incl. successful writ petition | Only partially reasonable; not all fees necessary | Remand: trial court must award Wife attorney fees/costs for successful writ; denial for unsuccessful writ/contempt petition affirmed. |
| Child support modification (retroactivity) | Court erred by modifying support retroactive prior to request | Reimbursement proper as child moved to Husband’s care | Order affirmed: Husband properly reimbursed for payments made after child lived with him; not abuse of discretion. |
| Expert witness fees | Should be recoverable as litigation costs | Each side should bear own accountant/expert costs | Affirmed: No abuse—trial court acted within discretion due to excessive, mutual litigation without settlement. |
| Retroactive base support | Additional support should have been ordered for 2018 period | Not needed as expenses paid from community funds | Affirmed: No additional support order necessary as expenses paid from community account during that period. |
| Security/disclosure for spousal support | Court erred by omitting disclosure/security requirements | No evidence of concealment or nonpayment | Affirmed: No abuse—no need for security/disclosure requirements given the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith, 223 Cal.App.3d 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (spousal and child support may be based on regular and bonus/discretionary compensation)
- In re Marriage of Macilwaine, 26 Cal.App.5th 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (income from stock options must be included in child, but not necessarily spousal, support calculations)
- In re Marriage of McLaughlin v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.3d 473 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (parties may cross-examine mediator before custody order based on recommendations)
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (marital standard of living is a reference, not strict measure, for spousal support)
- Jackson v. Jackson, 51 Cal.App.3d 363 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) (child support is for the child’s benefit; reimbursement allowed for overpayments)
- In re Marriage of Gruen, 191 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (temporary spousal support order remains operative until permanent order entered)