Marriage of Prunchunas CA2/2, B319493

Background

Edward and Elba Prunchunas married in 1977, separated on September 30, 2018; dissolution judgment entered January 30, 2020 with spousal support and property division reserved.
Elba sought temporary spousal support; October 9, 2020 order awarded her $22,587/month starting February 1, 2020; the court denied without prejudice any award for dates before February 1, 2020 and that order was not appealed.
Elba later sought $693,977 in retroactive temporary support for Sept/Oct 2018–Feb 1, 2020; the trial court denied that request.
After trial on reserved issues, the court awarded Elba permanent spousal support of $5,000/month beginning November 1, 2021, with the obligation to reduce automatically to $0 upon Edward’s retirement; the court found Edward had high current earnings but materially reduced income upon retirement and that Elba had access to substantial community liquid assets.
Edward moved under Fam. Code §271 for sanctions; the trial court found Elba refused multiple favorable settlement offers, attributed a portion of Edward’s fees to that refusal, and imposed $100,000 in sanctions (reduced from $208,000 for hardship).
Elba appealed the permanent support award, the denial of retroactive temporary support, and the §271 sanctions; the Court of Appeal affirmed both judgments.

Issues

Issue	Elba's Argument	Edward's Argument	Held
Amount of permanent spousal support vs. marital standard of living	Trial court should have awarded support equal to marital standard of living (including savings/investments) as shown by accountants	Court properly weighed §4320 factors and could award less than the accountants’ MSL figures	Affirmed: MSL is a reference point; court acted within broad discretion after weighing §4320 factors
Whether marital history of savings required inclusion in support amount	Savings pattern during marriage should be reflected in support award to maintain marital standard of living	Court considered savings as part of MSL but need not order support to maintain prior savings rate	Affirmed: court considered savings but reasonably declined to set support to replicate savings/investment rate
Step-down to $0 upon Edward’s retirement	Terminating support on retirement is speculative and improper	Step-down supported by evidence of Edward’s age, retirement eligibility, and projected post-retirement incomes	Affirmed: step-down was a reasonable inference from evidence and within discretion
Retroactive temporary spousal support for pre-Feb 1, 2020 period	Court erred by denying $693,977 retroactive support	October 9, 2020 order was final as to earlier period and court lacked jurisdiction to award retroactive support	Affirmed: trial court lacked jurisdiction; denial barred by res judicata and §3603 limits
§271 sanctions ($100,000)	Sanctions improper; offers were not as favorable or refusal not sanctionable	Elba refused multiple highly favorable offers causing unnecessary fees	Affirmed: sanctions were within discretion given refusal to accept offers and resulting fees

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of McLain, 7 Cal.App.5th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (trial court has broad discretion in spousal support awards)
In re Marriage of Grimes & Mou, 45 Cal.App.5th 406 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (marital standard of living is a reference point, not an absolute entitlement)
In re Marriage of Smith, 225 Cal.App.3d 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (defining marital standard of living concept)
In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (step-down provisions may be proper; deferential review)
In re Marriage of Drapeau, 93 Cal.App.4th 1086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (trial court must consider history of savings as part of MSL)
In re Marriage of Williamson, 226 Cal.App.4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (limits on retroactive modification of pendente lite support)
In re Marriage of Gruen, 191 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (temporary support operative when pronounced; appeal/res judicata bars later challenge)
In re Marriage of Freitas, 209 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (reservation of jurisdiction required to allow retroactive modification)
In re E.M., 228 Cal.App.4th 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review and deference for §271 sanctions)
In re Marriage of Pearson, 21 Cal.App.5th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (review of section 271 sanctions is highly deferential)