Tentative Ruling

Judge Thomas Anderle
Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

FAMILY LAW
Christine Lynette Martin and James Anthony Eaton
Case No: 18FL02570
Hearing Date: Tue Mar 17, 2020 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Spousal Support Determination of Spousal Support Arrears and Payment on Arrears

Petitioner’s Req. for Order: Spousal Support Determination for Spousal Support Arrears and Payment on Arrears

Attorneys:

Petitioner [Christine] in pro per

Respondent [“James”] in pro per

Ruling: For the reasons set out below, the Court finds that James owes $13,500 in principal and $337.75 in interest for a total of $13,837.75 in spousal support arrears. James will pay Christine the originally agreed upon $2,550 per month plus $450 per month on the arrears for a total of $3,000 per month, with the first payment due April 1, 2020, and thereafter $3,000 on the first day of each month until the terms of the settlement agreement have been fully met.

Analysis

On 12/20/19 Christine filed her RFO;

Requests that the Court make a

1. Determination of spousal support arrears, and

2. Determination of Respondent’s monthly payment amount on spousal support arrears.

In her declaration, in support of her RFO, she testifies that in the Judgment filed on 12/18/2018 it was ordered and James agreed to the following:

“Respondent will pay to Petitioner a total of $2,550 per month as and for spousal support…payable in advance, $2,550 on the 1st day of each month…to begin on 1st day January, 2019 and continue until whichever of the following will occur first: the death of either party or remarriage of the recipient, or 1st day of March, 2022.”

James has failed to pay his spousal support as ordered, either because he underpaid or because he failed to make any payment per month, as indicated by the Declaration of Payment History and the CFLR Executioner accounting dated 12/20/2019 that she filed with her declaration. Christine contends that James owes $13,500 in principal and $337.75 in interest for a total of $13,837.75 in spousal support arrears; she is asking the Court to confirm this balance owed and also determine an amount as payment towards liquidation of these arrears.

James’ Response

Filed 3/2; the Court will only summarize; he does not consent to the proposed order; he contends that in the Judgment dated December 1l, 2018, this Court’s jurisdiction “to order support” is terminated. [He is referring to the Judgment filed 12/18/18 at paragraph 4l that provides “Spousal, domestic partner, or family support is ordered” and “Jurisdiction is terminated to order spousal or partner support to petitioner – respondent [both boxes checked.” However, that is obviously irreconcilable with paragraph 4m which provides the “Property division is ordered as set forth in the Settlement Agreement attached;” that document provides that he has to pay the spousal support Christine is seeking.]

James also contends that Christine’s RFO is improper because this Court does not have jurisdiction to “order a determination of spousal support arrears and payment on arrears;” that it does not have jurisdiction to enforce a contract that is invalid; unlawful in its making; that should this Court assume jurisdiction via enforcement of an alleged Settlement Agreement, he asserts the invalidity of such based on lack of mutuality in its making.

James testifies that the alleged contract, authored by Christine is one sided (in the writer’s favor) not having mutuality; he felt pressured (under duress) to sign the alleged contract simply to make peace at that time; the alleged contract is exorbitant (unconscionable) as to a need, if any, for spousal support; he was not fully informed about Christine’s wealth at the time of its signing; did not consult an attorney regarding his rights in its making; was not properly informed; did not initial each page of the alleged contract; he is not confident that the Settlement Agreement attached to the Judgment is the original of that to which he had unwillingly acquiesced.

James testifies that if the Court assumes jurisdiction via enforcement of the alleged Settlement Agreement, he asserts that a dispute has arisen as to the proper amount of spousal support, if any, and as to the division of community property; that the parties are entitled to mediation; it is his belief that Christine is capable and able to be a self-sufficient provider upon the termination of the marriage on April 20, 2019; that will be a point of discussion at mediation; that both of them were entitled to know each other’s financial status prior to its signing; a point of discussion at mediation; that since its making and at the time of his declaration, they have (and still do) reside at and in the same dwelling place; thereby removing any need to pay spousal support because Christine’s lifestyle made no changes.

James testifies that Christine is not in need of any spousal support because she is in possession of classical training in the Culinary Arts; acquired prior to this marriage commencing August 18, 2012; that he is not informed as to her separate-property earning capacity during and after the marriage; a point of discussion at mediation; Paragraph III of the alleged contract unfairly hides Christine’s separate-property assets; a point of discussion at mediation; that the alleged contract was not fairly negotiated by both parties in a non-intimidating setting; a situation remedied by mediation.

James testifies that should this Court assume jurisdiction via enforcement of an alleged Settlement Agreement, he asserts that this Court’s limited jurisdiction to enforce only the division of community property, not the taking of his future earnings; that Christine has no need for spousal support; she was surviving without his earnings prior to marriage, it is reasonable to believe that she can survive without any input from his future earnings, given this short term marriage; that her financial welfare is not dependent upon spousal support, even for three years; her financial welfare will not fall to the State’s care because she has an earning capacity as a prominent culinary artist and the love and affection of her family; that she failed to fully inform him of her wealthy financial status via a fair and proper financial disclosure.

James testifies that he has contracted the services of a professional, commencing March 18, 2020, for the purpose of analyzing the proper division of the community property upon full disclosure of both party’s financial assets; he has made a private contract with Preferred Rental to find him a different place to live as soon as possible; Christine has access to her family’s accumulated wealth; that he is entitled to one-half of all earnings made by Christine’s separate-property during marriage.

Christine’s Reply

Filed 3/20; the Court summarizes; she reiterates the two issues, to wit:

1. Determination-of spousal support arrears, and

2. Determination of James’ monthly payment amount on spousal support arrears.

Christine testifies that where the Judgment prepared by We the People at page 2, paragraph 4l, states jurisdiction terminated to order spousal support or partner support to Petitioner and Respondent was “a scrivener’s error” in reference to James; on page 4 of 8 of the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated into the Judgment, paragraph VI, the parties agreed that

“All right or claim to receive spousal support from the other is hereby waived by Respondent [James] and no court will have the jurisdiction to award spousal support to Respondent [James]at any time regardless of any circumstances that may arise.”

The parties further agreed that

“In consideration of the other terms of this settlement agreement,

A. Respondent [James] will pay to Petitioner [Christine] a total of $2,550 per month as and for spousal support.

B. Spousal Support is payable in advance, $2,550 on the 1st day of each month. Payments will begin on 1st day of January, 2019 and continue until whichever of the follow will occur first: the death of either party or remarriage of the recipient, or 1st day of March, 2022.”

Christine testifies that the parties bargained for this spousal support provision; an agreement is enforceable under the law; they met together with the representative from We the People; they talked about the spousal support at home before they went in the office; they agreed to a 40% split of his income; James was the one who came up with this figure [of 40%]; he has never taken any steps to try to set aside the Judgment; he initially paid the amount agreed upon; then he just stopped paying; in the Agreement he was advised to consult with an attorney before signing it; he chose not to take that course of action; the Agreement does not suddenly become unenforceable because he might regret his action in signing.

She again asks the Court to determine the spousal support arrears and determine a payment on arrears.

Conclusions

Christine’s arguments preponderate; James’ argument is not persuasive; he signed the Settlement Agreement; there is no proof at all that the original agreement was not attached to the Judgment; the document taken as a whole clearly reflects his agreement to pay spousal support and in what amount; the agreement is not complicated and it is specific; there was obviously a typographical or scrivener’s error; all of his other testimony is not persuasive and the Court should find for Christine. There will be no mediation. The Judgment will not be overturned or disregarded. The Court will simply correct the clerical error. James will pay the originally agreed $2,550 per month plus $450 per month on the arrears for a total of $3,000 per month until the terms of the settlement agreement have been fully met.