Ex-Husband Won’t Have to Repay Temporary Alimony

Tuesday, September 22, 2026

Page 1

Court of Appeal:

Ex-Husband Won’t Have to Repay Temporary Alimony

Opinion Says 2023 Validation of Prenuptial Agreement Specifying No Spousal Support Did Not Justify 2024 Order for Reimbursement Where Judge in Directing Payments, Pendente Lite, in 2021 Did Not Reserve Jurisdiction

By a MetNews Staff Writer

CARLA CHRISTOFFERSON

attorney/entrepreneur

Div. Three of the Court of Appeal for this district has countermanded a 2024 order that a man repay his celebrity ex-wife $217,206.47 in temporary spousal support, holding that the judge who, in 2021, directed the payment did not affect a reservation of jurisdiction by her comment at the start of a hearing that adjustments could be made later.

Treating a purported appeal from the order as a petition for a writ of mandate, the appeals court on Friday granted the writ.

Attorney/entrepreneur Carla Christofferson and musician/songwriter/filmmaker Adam Shell were wed on Oct. 18, 2008, and separated on Nov. 11, 2020. A prenuptial agreement provided that there would be no award of alimony upon a dissolution of the marriage.

However, then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anne Richardson—now a justice of this district’s Court of Appeal, sitting in Div. Two—on Sept. 24, 2021, declared that the validity of the contract was an issue yet to be decided. Richardson noted that Christofferson, the respondent—who was Miss North Dakota in 1989 and competed in the Miss America contest, became a part owner of the Los Angeles Sparks basketball team from 2006-14, and is a former managing partner of the Los Angeles office of O’Melveny & Myers LLP—had “over $6 million in cash and stock accounts,” and Shell was lacking in funds.

Findings and Order

In her Jan. 4, 2022 findings and order after hearing, the judge observed that “pendente lite spousal support payable by Respondent to Petitioner is appropriate in light of the incredibly huge disparity between Petitioner’s income and Respondent’s income and the need to maintain the status quo for each party and the children during the pendency of this proceeding.”

She remarked:

“The Court understands that there is a dispute over the validity of the spousal support provisions of the parties* Prenuptial Agreement, but both parties concede that pendente lite spousal support is within the discretion of the Court pending a trial on that disputed issue. This order for pendente lite spousal support is intended to preserve Petitioner’s lifestyle and needs while the dispute is pending and is in no way intended to relate to the merits of the enforceability of the Prenuptial Agreement.”

Jurisdictional Issue

At issue in the proceeding before Div. Three was whether the court had jurisdiction when Los Angeles Judge Josh Freeman Stinn on July 3, 2024, ordered reimbursement of the spousal support. He acted in light of a Feb. 23. 2023 finding by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Christine Byrd that the prenuptial agreement was valid.

Whether Shinn had the power to make his order hinged on whether Richardson had reserved jurisdiction. Shinn found that she had by commenting at the Sept. 24, 2021 hearing that “if there is anything that needs to be corrected, it will be corrected in the future.”

Christofferson pointed out in her respondent’s brief that what Richardson said was:

“I do accept the income as it has been calculated by Mr. Shell as being more accurate in terms of both the calculation time period as well as the fact that those payments were received. Again, if corrections are going to be made in the future, you know, and whatever may happen in the future, that’s fine, but for now that’s what I see. So I will agree to that.”

The lawyer, who was in pro per (as was nonlawyer Shell), argued:

“This statement confirms that Judge Richardson’s reference to possible future ‘corrections’ was expressly tied to income calculations, not to spousal support.”

Pro Tem’s Opinion

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Jessica M. Delgado, sitting on assignment to Div. Three, said in her opinion overturning Stinn’s order that Richardson did not make an “unambiguous statement about reallocating spousal support or crediting Christofferson should the prenuptial agreement be found valid,” declaring:

“Although the parties here clearly had an expectation that their spousal support waiver might ultimately be found valid, the court did not expressly tie that eventuality to a possible order requiring Shell to repay the temporary support he had received. Stated otherwise, the court’s statement was insufficient to give Shell a clear expectation that the support award was not final and that he might have to repay it.”

She said that “vague comments made during a hearing on a motion cannot impeach a court’s subsequent written ruling” which made no reference to a reservation of jurisdiction” and that it was unclear whether reference to future corrections referred to calculations of the parties’ respective assets or to spousal support.

The case is Shell v. Superior Court, B343141.

On July 1, Christofferson was placed on inactive State Bar status based on a failure to turn in a report this year relating to the Client Trust Account Protection Program.