Marriage of Lim and Carrasco CA6
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 179
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lim and Carrasco married in 2003 and separated in 2011, with two young children at issue.
- At filing, Carrasco was a college professor earning about $9,156/month; Lim was a law firm partner earning about $27,237/month.
- Lim planned an 80% work schedule after a domestic-violence incident, reducing her gross income to roughly $22,076/month and ending bonus eligibility.
- A hearing determined temporary child and spousal support should be based on Lim’s reduced 80% income rather than her full-time earning capacity.
- The trial court found Lim’s 80% schedule was in the children’s best interests and issued support orders accordingly.
- Carrasco appealed, challenging the basis of support calculation and related statutory deviations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether support should be based on Lim's reduced income or imputed earnings. | Carrasco argues Lim’s full-time earning capacity should be imputed at about $27,595/month. | Lim contends the court correctly used actual reduced income to reflect best interests and feasible schedule. | The court did not abuse discretion; support based on Lim's reduced income. |
| Whether the court erred by not imputing Lim's earning capacity based on an extraordinary schedule. | Carrasco asserts earning capacity should be the full-time partner at $27,595/month. | Lim relies on Simpson to require an objectively reasonable work regimen, not an extraordinary one. | Court acted within discretion not to impute extraordinary earning capacity. |
| Whether the court deviated from guideline support and properly documented reasons under §4056. | Carrasco argues deviation from guideline support was not properly recorded. | Lim maintains actual income was used and no improper deviation occurred. | Court complied with guidelines by basing calculations on actual income; no improper deviation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Simpson, 4 Cal.4th 225 (Cal. Supreme Court 1992) (earnings capacity based on objective, reasonable work regimen rather than extraordinary hours)
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. App. 2001) (earning capacity must be in the best interests of the children)
- In re Hinman, 55 Cal.App.4th 988 (Cal. App. 1997) (emphasizes earning capacity consideration in support outcomes)
- In re Marriage of Mosley, 165 Cal.App.4th 1375 (Cal. App. 2008) (best interests can support reducing work hours to care for children)
- In re LaBass & Munsee, 56 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. App. 1997) (earning capacity determination must align with children’s best interests)