Stanton v. Stanton
190 Cal. App. 4th 547
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Parties married in 1993, separated in 2005, dissolution granted March 2008; they signed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) addressing support.
- Soloman is a Navy member; temporary child support and spousal support were set after hearings in September 2009.
- In calculating temporary support, the court included nontaxable BAH and BAS in Soloman’s gross income.
- Soloman filed OSC to reduce child support (Oct 29, 2009) and modify spousal support (Nov 4, 2009).
- Soloman argued federal preemption barred inclusion of BAH/BAS as income; he argued spousal support should be excluded from gross income.
- Courts below denied modification; the issue on appeal centered on federal preemption and the treatment of military allowances in income for support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does federal preemption prohibit including military allowances in gross income for support? | Soloman argues preemption disallows including BAH/BAS as income. | Carol argues state child/spousal support rules govern income; preemption does not apply. | Preemption does not apply; military allowances may be included. |
| Whether spousal support should be included in gross income for child support calculations? | Soloman argues spousal support is not income for child support purposes. | Court may include all applicable income sources under guidelines; spousal support from a party to the proceeding is excluded. | Spousal support received from a party to the proceeding is not included in gross income. |
| Whether there were changed circumstances warranting modification of support? | Soloman claims updated declarations show changed circumstances. | Court should rely on statutory framework; argument was waived or not properly developed. | Court declined to modify based on lack of properly developed changed circumstances and waived issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) (domestic relations largely state law; preemption only with direct congressional mandate)
- Alter v. Alter, 171 Cal.App.4th 718 (2009) (federal tax status differs from support income; non-taxable items may be included)
- Stokes, 234 Or.App. 566 (2010) (gross income includes nontraditional items like certain allowances)
- In re Marriage of Corman, 59 Cal.App.4th 1492 (1997) (spousal support from a party to the proceeding is not included in gross income)
- Massey v. Evans, 68 A.D.3d 79 (2009) (military allowances may be considered income for support purposes)
- In re Marriage of McGowan, 638 N.E.2d 698 (1994) (federal and state considerations of income for support)
- State ex rel. D.F. v. L.T., 934 So.2d 687 (La. 2006) (non-taxable military allowances treated as income for support in some jurisdictions)