In Re Marriage of Hoffmeister

Summary

After about 23 years of marriage, the wife moved to raise spousal support from $1,500 to $2,500 and extend it indefinitely. The husband stipulated that he could pay. The trial court assumed the original judge had set support below her needs and made no finding on the marital standard of living. The Court of Appeal held that these assumptions were unsupported, that her expense declarations were largely estimates and were undercut by her savings and omitted accounts, and that she had not shown unmet needs tied to the marital standard of living. It reversed the increase, the extension of duration, and the attorney's fee award, and remanded. It denied the wife's request for sanctions.

What it means for the financial analysis

Income and expense declarations built on estimates, with unreported savings or accounts, can be attacked on credibility, and claimed needs should be tied to documented spending during the marriage. When the payor's increased ability to pay is the only change, the analysis must also show that the earlier award did not meet needs at the marital standard of living, and the court did not treat a continuing gap between income and expenses as enough.

Also available on CourtListener.