Husband Devoted The Majority Of His Time To A Failing Cycling Apparel Business, And Although Wife Had More Income From Sources Designed For The Care Of The Couple’s Disabled Child, She Also Had More Expenses Than Husband.
Husband in Marriage of Castia, Case No. A155088 (1st Dist., Div. 1 December 2, 2019) (unpublished) appealed lower court’s orders terminating his spousal support and denying his request for need-based attorney fees and costs. It was all for not. The 1/1 DCA found no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s decisions. Husband had not acted in good faith in trying to become self-sufficient. Instead, he focused on his failing cycling apparel business. Although Wife’s income was roughly 10 times that of her Husband, she was not in a superior financial position. Her income was derived from sources established for the care of the couple’s disabled son, she was a full-time caregiver to their son, and her debt and expenses were significantly greater than Husband’s expenses. The 1/1 DCA found the lower court had properly evaluated every single one of the more than a dozen factors under Family Code section 4320 in its order for spousal support, and had properly found financial parity between the parties existed – especially considering that the lower court had equally divided the parties’ marital assets – in its denial of attorney fees and costs.