Marriage of McLain
California Court of Appeal
7 Cal. App. 5th 262, 212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 537 (2017)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Colleen and Bruce McLain married in 2001. Bruce retired in 2005. Colleen substantially retired in 2006 and fully retired in 2011. Following her retirement, Colleen spent most of her time as a homemaker, and her monthly net social-security income was about $550. Bruce’s retirement income was $10,000 per month. Colleen and Bruce separated in 2014, when Colleen was 64 years old, and a petition for dissolution of the marriage was filed. The trial court found that Colleen needed spousal support to keep her standard of living close to the marital standard of living and that retirement was part of that standard of living. The trial court did not impute income to Colleen because there was no evidence that she had any income from employment and no evidence of jobs available to her, she was and had been retired, and she had a right to remain retired. The court held that Colleen was not expected to become self-supporting and ordered Bruce to provide Colleen with $4,000 per month in spousal support. Bruce appealed, arguing that Colleen had the obligation to become self-supporting and had no right to retire.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
