In re Marriage of Olf 9/2/05 CA2/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2005 » In re Marriage of Olf 9/2/05 CA2/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B175339

Case Date: 11/17/2005

Preview:Filed 9/2/05 Marriage of Olf CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

In re Marriage of JERALD R. and LAUREL J. OLF.

B175339 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD264969)

JERALD R. OLF, Appellant, v. LAUREL J. OLF, Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Wendy L. Kohn and John Ouderkirk, Judges. Reversed and remanded.

Jerald R. Olf, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

___________________________________________________

The trial court ordered a husband to pay support to his former wife, a disabled homemaker, at the end of a 35-year marriage. One month after the court filed its judgment ordering the payment of spousal support, the husband filed a petition for a modification, seeking a reduction in his support obligation. The court did not rule on the husband's petition until two years had passed. And when it did finally rule, it failed to exercise its discretion along legal lines by considering the husband's then-existing financial circumstances. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTS Appellant Jerald Olf and respondent Laurel Olf were married in 1962 and separated in 1997. Respondent, who was 58 years old at the time of separation, is a homemaker who raised the couple's children and did not work outside the house. Appellant, who was 63 years old at the time of separation, is a lawyer and certified public accountant. On March 7, 2002, the trial court entered judgment on reserved issues relating to marital support and property. The court observed that the parties enjoyed an upper middle class standard of living during the marriage. The court found that respondent, who is under continuing treatment for breast cancer, was the victim of domestic violence, which included beatings and appellant's attempt to strangle respondent in the laundry room of the family home in 1995 or 1996. Respondent suffers from emotional problems as a result of appellant's violent conduct, and she has little or no capacity to support herself. The court concluded that vocational training "is not a realistic possibility given the condition of her physical and emotional health." With respect to support, the court found that appellant "was, and is, hiding funds" and that appellant's testimony was "[m]arked by selective failure of recollection." The court noted "`indicia of fraud' in Mr. Olf's method of conducting his personal and business financial affairs" and that appellant engaged in a scheme to hide 40 percent of his income from respondent and her representatives. The court determined that appellant has an income of at least $15,658 per month available for support. Appellant was ordered to pay monthly spousal support of $6,500, 2

which the court deemed to be "well below" the amount respondent needed to maintain the marital lifestyle and pay for her medical expenses. The court found it "extremely unlikely" that respondent could ever become self-supporting due to her physical and emotional problems, which were perpetuated to some degree by appellant's physical and mental abuse of respondent during the marriage. One month after the trial court rendered its judgment, appellant filed a petition for a modification requesting a reduction in his support obligation on the grounds that he had no ability to pay the court-ordered amount. Appellant submitted an income and expense declaring claiming a net monthly income of $8,889 and a net disposable income of $3,305. Appellant showed total monthly expenses of $11,183 and claimed that he owed his new wife $140,000. The hearing on appellant's motion began on September 24, 2002. It continued on January 28, 2003, June 11, 2003, November 19, 2003, and finally concluded on February 23, 2004. During that period, the parties submitted significant evidence and argument relating to appellant's financial circumstances. THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING The court entered its ruling on March 26, 2004. The court found that appellant had not shown a material change in circumstances between March 7, 2002 (the date the court entered its original judgment) and April 19, 2002 (the date that appellant filed his petition for a modification). The court denied the petition for a modification. This appeal was filed on May 14, 2004. DISCUSSION 1. Appeal And Review The trial court may modify a support order "at any time as the court determines to be necessary." (Fam. Code,

Download In re Marriage of Olf 9/2/05 CA2/2.pdf