Williamson v. Williamson
226 Cal. App. 4th 1303
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Frederick W. Williamson II and Mary Kate Williamson separated after a lavish 20-year marriage funded by Frederick’s income, trust distributions, and substantial parental cash advances.
- Trial court treated parental cash advances as loans not income for support calculations, given they were repaid or could be repaid and were to be deducted from Frederick’s inheritance.
- Advances ceased before trial; Norman Williamson indicated no further advances were planned, making continued reliance on them speculative.
- Trial court imputed Frederick with $8,250 monthly income for child support and imputed income to Mary Kate; it relied on Frederick’s earnings and a $26,000 annual gift, excluding the advances.
- Featherhill, a jointly owned property, was deemed community asset; sale proceeds and separate-property contributions were addressed in a pendente lite and post-judgment framework.
- On appeal, the court reversed to the extent temporary support payments from the blocked account were charged to the community and modified the judgment accordingly, affirming in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parental advances can be treated as income | Mary Kate argues advances are income-bearing gifts. | Williamson contends they were loans or advances on inheritance and not income. | Advances were gifts/advance on inheritance; even if treated as gifts, the court’s exclusion from income was permissible. |
| Retroactive modification of pendente lite support | Mary Kate contends the court retroactively reduced her support unjustly. | Frederick argues modification was appropriate given allocations from the blocked account. | Trial court exceeded jurisdiction by retroactively modifying temporary support; judgment modified to assign such payments to Frederick’s share. |
| Sufficiency of the statement of decision | Mary Kate claims the 40-page SOF was deficient and incomplete. | Williamson argues the SOF adequately explains grounds for the judgment. | Court rejected claimed deficiency; the SOF sufficiently set forth the law and grounds supporting the decision. |
| Discovery of Chandler von Platen Trust terms | Mary Kate seeks broader disclosure of trust terms and third-party beneficiaries. | Frederick seeks protection for third-party privacy; discovery should be limited. | Protective order affirmed; limited discovery upheld to protect privacy while ensuring disclosure of Frederick’s interest terms. |
| Attorney fees and due process | Mary Kate contends she lacked opportunity to present evidence on fees. | Frederick contends procedure was appropriate and waivable. | Issue waived on appeal due to lack of post-trial motion; judgment upheld on fees accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Alter, 171 Cal.App.4th 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (gifts may be considered income if related to recurrent monetary benefits)
- In re Marriage of Schulze, 60 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (gifts can be treated as income as employee benefits; discretion preserved)
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for child support and consideration of marital standard of living and 4320 factors)
- In re Marriage of Gruen, 191 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (pendency lite orders and jurisdiction to modify; res judicata implications)
- In re Marriage of Schlafly, 149 Cal.App.4th 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (income definitions and treatment of gifts for support calculations)
- In re Marriage of Meegan, 11 Cal.App.4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (guidance on balancing needs and abilities under 4320)
- In re Marriage of Dietz, 176 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting that temporary support allocations may be treated per share of estate and distributions)
- In re Marriage of Rocha, 68 Cal.App.4th 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (student loans not income under 4058)