Trial court erred by calculating earning capacity based on extraordinary work schedule. Award of support should not penalize efforts of spouse by locking him into onerous schedule after the divorce.
Never-employed talmudic scholar is voluntarily impoverished and imputation of income for child support is affirmed.
Man was acting in good faith in quitting job to become priest. Modification in maintenance affirmed. California law does not require showing that change in circumstances was beyond payor’s control.
In looking at whether there has been a material change of circumstances to modify spousal support, court can look at the entire history of the case, not just the period since the last order.
Husband’s investments were too conservative and income should be imputed based on average five-year historical rate of return of A-rated long-term corporate bonds.
In determining wife’s earning capacity, it was error for the trial court to rely on his own internet search for availability of jobs.
Court not required to base alimony on present income – may be based on earning capacity or prospective earnings.
A divorced husband should be allowed a fair choice of a means of livelihood and to pursue what he honestly feels are his best opportunities even though he might for the present, at least, be working for a lesser financial return.
No basis for finding that working as independent barber was not occupation for which H was best suited – to base award on capacity, court must make appropriate findings based on record before it.
Order to seek other employment or additional employment was not an abuse of discretion.