In re Marriage of Cauley

In November 2002, Gerald Cauley (plaintiff) petitioned for divorce from Eileen Cauley (defendant). In March 2003, Gerald obtained a temporary restraining order against Eileen after she had made continuous calls threatening his life and had physically attacked him. In August 2003, the divorce decree was entered. The decree contained a spousal-support provision providing that Gerald owed Eileen monthly support, which could not be modified unless Eileen began cohabitating with a partner or Gerald lost his job. Following the divorce decree, Gerald agreed not to pursue a more permanent restraining order and moved from California to Florida with his new girlfriend. Shortly after the decree was entered, Eileen traveled to Florida. While in Florida, Eileen damaged Gerald’s property and physically attacked Gerald and his girlfriend. Following the incident, Gerald obtained a one-year restraining order against Eileen from a trial court in Florida. Eileen traveled back to California after the incident, but continuously violated the order by calling Gerald over 1,000 times and leaving threatening messages. In response, Eileen was charged by a Florida prosecutor and pleaded guilty to felony aggravated stalking. Eileen was placed on probation. Additionally, Gerald obtained a restraining order against Eileen from a California court and petitioned the California court to release him from his spousal-support obligations. The California court ordered a temporary cessation of the support obligation pursuant to California Family Code § 4325 (1992) and scheduled a hearing for Eileen to introduce evidence supporting her position that the spousal-support payments continue. Eileen argued that Section 4235, which would allow Gerald to stop making payments because of Eileen’s criminal conviction, could not apply because the parties had agreed that spousal support would not be modified unless Eileen began cohabitating with a partner or Gerald lost his job. The trial court rejected Eileen’s argument and granted Gerald’s motion. Eileen appealed.