Divorce Lawyers San Diego

Trial court was not required to make a finding of special circumstances that a trust was necessary to protect and promote the best interests of the parties’ children before requiring husband to name wife as trustee for the benefit of their sons on husband’s life insurance policies for the benefit of the parties’ two sons until the completion of their college education or emancipation.

The legislature has set forth certain conditions upon which maintenance will be terminated or modified, however, parties to a dissolution action are permitted to enter into settlement agreements which alter the court’s ability to terminate or modify maintenance and they take precedence over the statutory conditions.
In determining whether there is sufficient cause to modify, the court may consider both the circumstances of the parents and the circumstances of the child.
For a case discussing modification of alimony award.

Where any change in non-custodial parent’s physical ability to work which would indicate reduction or elimination of support payments was offset by the present potential for him to receive money from his aunt’s estate, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify the support order.

Where the valid, enforceable portion of the agreement required father to pay $660 per month in child support, this obligation continued until father petitioned for and was granted a modification regardless of his loss of job.

Modifications for support are only applicable to payments made after the filing of the modification petition; therefore the trial court’s imposition of back payments was beyond the power granted to it by statute.

Subsection (a) of this section governed cases in which the trial court was making an initial determination of child support or an initial award of child support and maintenance, not, as occurred in the case at bar, the termination of maintenance and the modification of child support; therefore, plaintiff, who met her burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances, was entitled to some increase in support payments.

Also See New York Divorce Lawyers

When the trial court renders a valuation that is outside the expert testimony presented at trial, the reviewing court must carefully scrutinize the trial court’s determination.
A reviewing court will not reverse the trial court where the parties have failed to produce evidence of the valuation of assets in dissolution cases when there was an adequate opportunity to do so.

A distribution of more than half the marital property to the wife was upheld where (1) the husband had significant non-marital assets, including a farm which was appraised at $600,000, (2) a majority of the debt assigned to the husband consisted of the operating expenses of the farm, (3) the husband had a superior earning capacity, had more sources of income, and had a greater opportunity for future acquisition of capital assets and income, and (4) trial court awarded the wife sole custody of the children, but did not award her maintenance.
Award of less than one-half of the marital property to wife, while not generous, was justified in view of the husband’s greater contribution to the marital estate, the wife’s greater share of property immediately capable of producing income, and the substantial value of the property awarded to the wife.

General rule that an interested party should not be appointed trustee of a trust established from marital property, for minor trustee of a trust established from marital property, for minor child’s education and support, did not apply where adequate safeguards were instituted to ensure proper distribution of trust funds.

Although a judge must consider the tax consequences when dividing the marital property, the judge cannot consider the tax consequences of actions which are not necessary as a result of the judgment entered.