Samson v. Samson
197 Cal. App. 4th 23
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Married in 1985, separated in 2007; Elaine filed for dissolution and temporary spousal support in March 2008.
- Richard, a mutual funds wholesaler, proposed Ostler & Smith adjustment for commissions rather than base salary.
- June 2008 stipulation set $9,059 monthly and 35% of compensation over $25,000 for each month.
- Richard received a lump-sum severance of $309,700.81 in September 2009 after being laid off in July 2009.
- In March 2011, Richard sought OSC modification/clarification of severance impact; court denied OSC; appeal followed.
- On remand, court must reallocate severance pay for Ostler & Smith purposes; issue concerns allocation of lump-sum severance under the stipulated order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance should be allocated over months for Ostler & Smith,” | Richard sought to spread severance over 13 months | Elaine contends severance is lump-sum compensation for September 2009 | Severance must be reallocated, not treated as single-month compensation |
| Whether temporary support modification was properly denied based on cohabitation/unemployment | Richard claimed change of circumstances due to unemployment and Elaine’s cohabitation | Court erred in requiring factors for permanent support; temporary support considers needs and ability to pay | Affirmed denial of modification; remanded for severance allocation considerations |
| Whether the court erred by treating severance as limited to Ostler & Smith if lump-sum | Severance should reflect its multi-component structure (salary + commissions) | Ostler & Smith justification could justify continued adjustment | Remanded to reallocate severance in accordance with the severance’s actual components |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith, 223 Cal.App.3d 33 (Cal. App. 1990) (income-based Ostler-Smith percentage applying to discretionary bonuses/variable income)
- In re Marriage of Stephenson, 39 Cal.App.4th 71 (Cal. App. 1995) (severance can be treated as multiple months’ salary for allocation)
- In re Marriage of Murray, 101 Cal.App.4th 581 (Cal. App. 2002) (retroactive modification not permitted absent change of circumstances)
- In re Marriage of Richardson, 102 Cal.App.4th 941 (Cal. App. 2002) (extrinsic evidence used to interpret ambiguous stipulated orders)
- In re Marriage of Mosley, 165 Cal.App.4th 1375 (Cal. App. 2008) (Ostler-Smith percentage applied to actual discretionary bonuses)
- In re Wittgrove, 120 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. App. 2004) (temporary support based on needs and ability to pay; no strict statutory guideline)