126 Cal.Rptr.3d at 548. The court also found that the subdivision changed, as opposed to clarified, then ex- isting law. The court concluded that this change was the legislature’s response toward a shift in public policy:
[B]efore its enactment, there was no requirement that a party have independent counsel at the time of executing the premarital agreement in order for a waiver of spousal support to be enforceable. Instead . . . there was a shift in public policy towards enforce- ment of such provisions. Our Legislature responded by enacting subdivision (c) of section 1612. Id. at 547.
MILITARY ALLOWANCES MATTER
In re Marriage of Stanton is also a case of first impres- sion. 190 Cal.App.4th 547, 551 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 24, 2010).3
In that case, the Court of Appeal held that
military housing and food allowances count in the cal- culation of alimony. The court held that this is true even though such allowances are neither taxable nor subject to wage garnishment.
Solomon Stanton sought a reduction of temporary child and spousal support. He had married Carol Stan- ton and they had a son. When they divorced, the court had ordered that Solomon pay Carol temporary sup-
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that the federal preemption doctrine does not prohibit the inclusion of a military allowance in calculating child or spousal support. The court explained that the doctrine is inap- plicable to family law unless Congress’s intent is clearly contrary to state law:
[T]he United States Supreme Court explained: “We have consistently recognized that ‘the whole sub-
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEY 43
port. Solomon is a member of the United States Navy. The court had calculated the amount of support based in part on Solomon’s military allowances for housing and food. In his request for reduction, Solomon argued that because federal law exempts a military allowance from federal tax and wage garnishment, the court had violated the federal preemption doctrine by including his allowances in its calculation. Under the federal pre- emption doctrine, Congress can preempt state laws:
The supremacy clause of the United States Con- stitution establishes a constitutional choice-of-law rule, makes federal law paramount, and vests Con- gress with the power to preempt state law. Id. at 555 (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, after a hearing, the Superior Court in San Diego County denied Solomon’s request for reduction.
prenuptial
alimony
dissolution spousal support
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68