In Re Marriage of Morrison

Summary

After a 28-year marriage, the wife had no job skills, earned about $100 a month part time, and had health problems. The husband netted about $1,456 a month from salary and a military pension. The trial court awarded $400 a month for eight years, then reserved jurisdiction for three years, then ended support absolutely. The Supreme Court held that ending jurisdiction at 11 years was an abuse of discretion because nothing in the record showed she would be self-supporting. It found no abuse of discretion in the $400 amount, since the parties' combined income could not fully fund two households. It reversed the judgment and remanded, directing the trial court to adjudicate the wife's interest in the husband's nonvested pension and to consider the husband's argument that the promissory note he received was worth less than face value.

What it means for the financial analysis

Where a long-marriage spouse seeks to extend or retain support, income analysis should document her actual earnings, her realistic earning capacity, and any retirement income, because the court looked for record evidence of future self-sufficiency and rejected speculation. The case applies former Civil Code section 4801 before its 1976 amendment added more factors, so it should be cited with the current statutory framework in mind.

Also available on CourtListener.