Thursday, August 16, 2018
Page 1
C.A. Reverses Spousal Support Award Because of Judge’s Math Errors
Justice Segal Says Trial Court Confused Before-Taxes and After-Taxes Income, Thus Mixing ‘Gross Apples and Net Oranges’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s award of spousal support has been reversed based on faulty math.
The judge, Mark Juhas, determined that Kristin Hiibner, who makes about $5,000 a month, before taxes, as an attorney with the patent law firm of Karish & Bjorgum PC in Pasadena, needed about $16,000 a month, after taxes, to maintain her standard of living. He ordered her husband, intellectual property litigator Bruce Chapman of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, to pay her $10,000 a month.
|
|
|
|
BRUCE CHAPMAN IP Attorney |
KRISTIN HIBNER Patent Attorney |
Court of Appeal Justice John Segal of this district’s Div. Seven, pointed out, in an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday:
“The court’s statement of decision concluded that, considering Hiibner’s monthly (gross) income of approximately $5,000, $10,000 in (taxable) spousal support would be enough for her to meet the marital standard. But $5,000 + $10,000 = $15,000 before taxes is substantially less than $16,000 after taxes. Taking taxes into account, the evidence was that Hiibner required approximately $21,000 in gross monthly spousal support to net $16,000. Thus, substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding that $15,000 per month after taxes ‘will meet the marital standard.’ ”
Total Was $10,050
He noted that evidence showed that “after-tax disposable income generated by $15,000 is approximately $10,050, which is well below what the court found Hiibner needed to maintain the marital standard.”
Segal remarked that Juhas “mixed gross apples and net oranges.”
The jurist cited Family Code §4330 as requiring a court to award spousal support in a “just and reasonable” that is “based on the standard of living established during the marriage,” and taking into account the various factors set forth in §4320. The factors include earning capacity and health of the parties.
(It was agreed that Hiibner was able to work only part-time owing to health problems.)
Weighing of Factors
Segal wrote:
“Our decision does not compel the trial court to award Hiibner spousal support in an amount that ‘will meet’ the marital standard. To the contrary, on remand the trial court must consider and weigh the relevant factors in section 4320 against the marital standard of living to determine the amount of a just and reasonable spousal support award….The trial court has discretion to determine the appropriate weight given to each factor, but the court’s reasoning must be ‘tied to the evidence”’…and provide insight into the facts on which it relied in weighing each of the statutory factors.”
The opinion directs the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether Chapman should be ordered to maintain a life insurance policy naming Hiibner as beneficiary.
The case is Marriage of Chapman and Hiibner, B278439.
Gregory R. Ellis represented Hiibner. Scott M. Klopert of Klopert & Ravden, joined by Claudia Ribet of Ribet & Silver, were attorneys on appeal for Chapman.
Ribet is a certified specialist in both appellate and family law.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company