Page 1
Orange Superior Court Judge Issues Orders in Family Law Case Beyond Her Powers—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An Orange Superior Court judge exceeded her powers in ordering a husband not to seek modification of a spousal support order for five years unless, within that time, the wife obtained further education of a “significant” nature so as to give rise to a conclusion that she had become self-supporting, Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held.
The judge whose rulings came under scrutiny in Friday’s unpublished opinion is Michele Bell, who was elected to her post in 2022. She was, at the time, a court commissioner.
A partial reversal comes in a case in which the marriage of Newport Beach attorney Christian C. Chapman of the Rudderow Law Group, Inc. and Yolanda Rivera Villagomez, a nanny, was dissolved.
Bell’s Ruling
On April 19, 2024, Bell ruled that Chapman, the petitioner, “is precluded from modifying the permanent spousal support until five (5) years from now or until Respondent completes any sort of significant vocational training, receiving a certificate for some sort of vocational field or degree.”
The judge added:
“[A]nd the Court does not mean an associate’s degree. The Court means a Bachelor of Science or Arts or something significant.”
Chapman asserted on appeal “that there is no statutory or decision-based legal authority which supports Trial court’s prohibition against Appellant seeking modification of permanent spousal support orders,” pointing out:
“To the contrary, Family Code section 3651(a) provides that, ‘a support order may be modified or terminated at any time as the court determines to be necessary.’ ”
Specifying what sort of education would render Villagomez self-supporting, Chapman contended, is also violative of that provision.
Gooding’s Opinion
Justice Martha K. Gooding wrote:
“We know of no provision of law (and neither party cites one) that would authorize the court to prohibit Christian from seeking to modify the order for any period where the parties had not so agreed.”
She added:
“To the extent the family court purported to dictate precisely what kind of training, education, or degree Yolanda would have to complete before the court would consider her self-supporting, that too was an abuse of discretion. The court cited no statutory or other legal authority authorizing such an order, and we are aware of none.12 Becoming self-supporting simply requires that a party seek gainful employment, or the retraining required to obtain such employment, such that she can support herself….The court has no authority to specify or particularize the type of training necessary to do this.”
Student Loans
Bell also determined at the 2024 hearing that “[i]t would be unjust to deny Respondent’s request to reimburse her for the community payments made to Petitioner’s student loan.” The loans enabled him to gain a degree from Whittier College School of Law.
Gooding acknowledged that under Family Code §2641(c)(1), “there is a rebuttable presumption the loan payments did not benefit the community” because they “were made less than 10 years before the dissolution proceeding commenced” in 2018. She noted that “to prevail on his argument that reimbursement should not be required,” Chapman was required to rebut that presumption—but said that Bell made no finding as to whether he had done so.
The jurist said “the undisputed facts are more than sufficient to rebut the presumption” given the boost in Chapman’s earning capacity once having been admitted to the State Bar, declaring that Chapman “is not required to reimburse the community for the student loan payments.”
Other aspects of the judgment came under discussion, with some recalculations being ordered on remand.
The case is Marriage of Chapman and Villagomez, G064188.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company