Marriage of Wu and Lin

Filed 4/11/07 Marriage of Wu and Lin CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In this marital dissolution case, the wife appeals from an order terminating her spousal support. Finding no basis for disturbing the order, we shall affirm.

BACKGROUND

The parties to this marital dissolution action are Zhonghua Wu, petitioner below and respondent on appeal (husband), and Wei Lin, respondent below and appellant here (wife). According to a trial brief filed by the husband in January 2006, the parties were married in September 1994 and separated in July 2002; they have one child together.

July 2003 Stipulated Spousal Support Order

On July 14, 2003, by stipulation in open court, the parties resolved some of the disputed issues in their divorce case. As relevant here, their agreement covered spousal support. As reflected in the transcript of that hearing, the parties agreed that husband would pay wife spousal support in the amount of $2,289 per month. They further agreed that spousal support would continue for three years or until wife dies, remarries or further order of the court, but terminate at the end of three years on July 16th, 2006.

Counsel examined wife on the record concerning her understanding of the agreement. During that examination, counsel confirmed that wife would receive spousal support for three years for a maximum of three years. Wife agreed to be bound by that agreement.

The court examined wife as well. The trial judge asked: And do you understand all of the terms of the agreement? Wife responded in the affirmative. The judge then asked: And specifically you understand regarding spousal support that it will terminate in three years. Youll not, no matter what the change of circumstance is, the Court will not have the ability to to extend support beyond three years? Again, wife responded in the affirmative. The court followed up yet again, posing this question: You understand that if you cant work, youre disabled or there are no jobs no matter what you cant come back after three years and one day and ask for support, you understand that? The wife answered: Yeah.

The court accepted the parties stipulation to enter those orders as requested. The court requested wifes counsel to submit a written order. She did not do so, however, and no written order was entered until February 2006.

Subsequent Orders

As of March 2004, wife was subject to a court order requiring her to make good faith efforts to seek and obtain employment.

In June 2004, the court denied wifes request to modify spousal support. In doing so, the court made a finding that the Spousal Support Order is a long-term Order despite being characterized as a Temporary Order. As reflected in the minute order, the court was not convinced that wife had used best efforts to find employment.

By written order filed in June 2005, the employment efforts order was continued in effect. At a hearing held the following month, the court ordered wife to undergo a vocational evaluation and to disclose her employment efforts. Two vocational evaluations were prepared thereafter. Each concluded that wife was employable and could find work, though the two reports differed somewhat on the salary range that she could expect. At the July 2005 hearing, the court also scheduled a mandatory settlement conference, trial, and an employment efforts review. As stated in the order after hearing: The issue for trial is whether support should terminate, and if so, when.

Trial

In February 2006, the court conducted a trial on the issues of spousal support, child support and attorney fees. As relevant here, the courts formal order after hearing recites the procedural history of the parties agreement concerning spousal support. As stated therein, wife understood that she was only receiving spousal support for three years and pursuant to the agreement would not be able to receive it for a longer period of time. Consistent with the stipulation, the court ordered: Spousal support for [wife] shall terminate as of July 16, 2006, and no spousal support after that date shall be paid by [husband] to [wife]. The court also imputed income to wife. In addition, it ordered her to pay husbands attorney fees and costs, totaling $5,400, pursuant to Family Code section 271.

Appeal

Wife appeals from the February 2006 order. Her sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in terminating spousal support.

DISCUSSION

A husband and wife may contract with each other with respect to support and property rights. (Hough v. Hough (1945) 26 Cal.2d 605, 612.) The amount and duration of [spousal] support upon dissolution or legal separation may be set by the parties agreement, written stipulation filed with the court, or oral stipulation in open court. (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2006) 6:1001, p. 6-355; see Fam. Code, 3590-3591.) When such agreements are entered as court orders, they are deemed law-imposed and made under the courts authority to award spousal support. (Hogoboom & King, at p. 6-355.)

Such agreements generally will be enforced according to their terms. In some cases, that result is compelled by the courts loss of jurisdiction. Once the spousal support period expires in accordance with a clear and unequivocal termination date or terminating event, the court has no jurisdiction to extend further support unless it retained jurisdiction.... (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law, supra, 17:107, p. 17-32.9.)

Thus, where the language of the stipulation is explicit and unambiguous, the support obligation terminates as stated therein. (In re Marriage of Zlatnik (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1284, 1290; cf., In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 22, 28 [no clear or knowing waiver of spousal support by wife].) That is the case here. At the July 2003 hearing, at which the stipulation was made and accepted, the court was careful to ensure that wife was making a clear, explicit, and knowing agreement that spousal support would terminate in three years. Under these circumstances, the stipulation must be honored. (In re Marriage of Zlatnik, at p. 1291.)

DISPOSITION

The February 2006 order terminating spousal support is affirmed.

____________________________________________

McAdams, J.

WE CONCUR:

________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

________________________________

Duffy, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.