Filed 8/28/26
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re Marriage of CANDICE and B336738
SCOTT TRAWEEK
______________________________ (Los Angeles County
CANDICE TRAWEEK, Super. Ct. No. 21AVFL00445)
Respondent,
v.
SCOTT TRAWEEK,
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Diane M. Goodman, Judge. Affirmed.
Clunen & Oakman Law, Karen D. Oakman; Ferguson Case
Orr Paterson and Wendy C. Lascher for Respondent.
Decker Law, James Decker, Griffin Schindler and Chris
Jones for Appellant.
_______________________
INTRODUCTION
The superior court dissolved the marriage of Scott Traweek
(Scott) and Candice Traweek (Candace).1 Appellant Scott appeals
the judgment. He argues the trial court erred in its
interpretation and application of Family Code2 section 4325 when
awarding Candice spousal support. He contends the trial court
abused its discretion in finding that Candice rebutted Family
Code section 4325’s presumption prohibiting an award of support
to a spouse convicted of domestic violence.
We find neither a misinterpretation of the statute nor
abuse of discretion. The trial court properly considered various
factors in finding Candice had successfully rebutted section
4325’s presumption. The judgment is affirmed.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Relevant Facts
Scott and Candice married on May 10, 2003, and their date
of separation is May 12, 2021.
On May 19, 2021, Candice filed a petition for dissolution of
marriage. Scott initiated a separate action requesting a domestic
violence restraining order (DVRO) against Candice; he obtained a
DVRO against her on June 28, 2021. The DVRO requires
Candice not to “[h]arass, attack, strike, threaten, . . . follow,
stalk, molest, destroy personal property, disturb the peace, keep
under surveillance,” “[c]ontact, either directly or indirectly, by
1 We refer to the parties by their first names because they
share the same last name.
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.
2
any means, including but not limited to, by telephone, mail, e-
mail, or other electronic means” with Scott, with the exception of
“[b]rief and peaceful contact . . . required for court-ordered
visitation of children.” The DVRO also required Candice to stay
100 yards away from Scott, his home, car, and place of work, with
an exception for contact regarding the children. The DVRO is set
to expire on June 28, 2026. We note here that we were not
provided the request for DVRO nor any pleading filed in
connection with the DVRO matter except the DVRO itself, issued
on June 28, 2021; we were not apprised of the events or incidents
leading up to the filing and granting of the DVRO request.
The DVRO includes a reference to a “Criminal Protective
Order—Domestic Violence,” set to expire on February 27, 2023, in
case No. OAN03584. (Italics omitted.) We were not provided a
copy of the criminal protective order.
B. Trial
Trial took place on June 5, August 11, 21, 24, and
September 1, 2023, on the issues of child custody, child support,
spousal support, division of assets and debts, and attorney fees.
Scott and Candice both testified. The parties’ corrected joint
settled statement, filed on December 6, 2024, provides a
summary of the following relevant testimony.
Scott’s testimony: “[T]here was an incident in 2020 where
he called the police and had [Candice] arrested.” He filed for a
DVRO and for divorce, but “dismissed the divorce case, dismissed
the request for [DVRO], allowed [Candice] to move back into the
home, told the DA not to file charges, took her and the children
on a family vacation, sent her flirty messages, shared a bedroom,
had [Candice] make his lunches, went out to dinner together, and
3
they had sexual relations. . . . While living together in 2020 and
2021, [Scott] ‘allowed’ [Candice] to use an ATM card.”
Scott “sought a restraining order in May 2021 against
Candice, which was granted based upon the actions in 2020.
After the restraining order was issued, he took a cake to
Candice’s home for [their child] Sam’s birthday. Scott testified on
cross that after this restraining order he would write Candice
messages stating that he loved her and other flirty messages.”
(Italics added.)
Candice’s testimony: “In 2020, . . . Scott had left [Candice]
with no access to funds when Scott closed their joint account with
no warning. . . . [E]ven once reconciled[,] Scott would ‘allow’ her
to use his debit card when she was purchasing items for the
home, but she never was given access to a bank account.”
Candice “would receive the family bills to the home and would
pay them from the joint account. In 2018/2019, she noticed they
no longer appeared to have the funds to pay the mortgage. . . .
Candice only learned after a subpoena in 2022 (after multiple
motions to compel), that Scott had been taking some of his
earnings and gave this money to his brother in the amount of
$38,500. She was not aware he had switched his bank
statements to his brother’s address and he only told her that it
was her fault there was no money.”
Candice testified to “how toxic the relationship became
when she found Scott’s drugs. She originally thought the money
was missing for drug money, not being sent to his brother.
Candice testified to Scott’s abusive behaviors such as yelling,
taking away the mail key so she could no longer get the mail, and
the pattern of abuse of taking away money.”
4
Candice “admitted she was convicted and sentenced for
committing domestic violence against Scott.” “After being
arrested in May 2020, Candice pled guilty to avoid her children
having to testify since she and Scott reconciled[,] so she did not
see the point in fighting it further. She testified that they had
started talking, started exchanging flirtatious messages, started
meeting up, and she moved back into the home in 2020. She
testified to them having sexual relations, sleeping in the same
bed, going on trips together, meeting for dinner, and holding
themselves out as a married couple.” “After the 2021 [DVRO],
Candice testified that Scott would come to her home frequently
and would ask to change the exchange location to her home
instead of the police station. He also would send her flirtatious
messages and they had dinner after this restraining order.
Candice testified that Scott invited her to the vet when he had to
put down his dog, so she could comfort him and the[n] spent
hours together. Candice showed evidence in Talking Parents and
in text messages.”
The Talking Parents communications and text messages
between Scott and Candice were flirty in nature. For instance, a
text message exchange on July 23, 2021—just 3 weeks after Scott
obtained the DVRO against Candice—provides:
Candice: “We’re home now. Thank you for tonight, it was
another incredible night ♥♥♥♥”
Scott: “Thank you….it was nice to see you and the girls, our
family. I enjoyed making us dinner tonight too…hey, guess
what??? I am STILL in love with you!!”
Candice: “Wow…….. You seriously just made my heart
start racing AGAIN….. Just like the last few times we’ve seen
5
each other because……. I am undoubtedly STILL in love with you
too….. Feels incredible.”
The next day, on July 24, 2021, the following text message
exchange took place:
Candice: “Made it home babe. Thank you for another great
day/night!”
Scott: “Great… I’m happy to hear that. And thank you for
a great day and night. I had a great time… I gotta say, you are
driving me crazy with your HOTNESS…lol”
Candice: “Hahaha, good, because I seriously can’t get
enough of you, so the feeling is MORE than mutual!!!! Want so
much more of you!!”
Scott: “Oh yeah…. Feeling the need to feel ALL of you…”
The next morning, on July 25, 2021, Scott texted Candice,
“Should I text, wait for you to text... wait 3 days? Wait 3
minutes? Ohhhh…. I don’t know how this works??? LOL Good
morning babe and how is the most beautiful woman in the world
doing this fine ass day?” Later that morning, Candice texted and
asked Scott what type of beverage he would want from Smart &
Final, to which he replied, “The kind that makes your panties
drop…”
C. Statement of Decision and Judgment
On November 2, 2023, the trial court issued a lengthy
statement of decision. As for spousal support, the trial court
ruled:
“[Candice] was arrested for domestic violence against
[Scott]. [Candice] admitted that she was convicted and sentenced
for domestic violence against [Scott].” The trial court “reviewed
the five cases interpreting Family Code [s]ection 4325.”
6
“This court understands that the public policy behind
Family Code [s]ection 4325 is to not further injure the injured
spouse by making them support the convicted spouse. However,
in this case, [Candice] did not work the entire marriage and she
has no current marketable skills. Her last employment was as a
pharmacy technician at the beginning of their marriage.
[Candice] has devoted her entire marriage to taking care of the
home and their children. The parties maintained a middle-class
lifestyle. [Scott] contends that he earned enough to support the
family without [Candice] needing to work. However, this court
finds that the parties lived beyond their means as [Scott]
refinanced the house twice to pay off debt and [Candice] used her
inheritance to support the family. Further, during the last year
of the parties’ marriage, [Candice] ran up substantial credit card
debt as either [Scott] was holding back funds from [Candice] or
there wasn’t enough income to maintain their lifestyle. The court
finds that the latter was probably more accurate. [Scott’s]
withholding of funds to pay bills during the marriage is a form of
coercive control (see Family Code [s]ection 6320(c)(3).
“[Scott] was able to work, including overtime, due to the
fact that [Candice] was taking care of the household and the
children. The court notes that one of the parties’ children has
finished high school but she is still living with and being
supported solely by her mother [Candice]. This is a marriage of
long duration as it is 18 years long. That is a long time for
[Candice] to be out of work and then be expected to support
herself.
“These factors distinguish this case from [In re Marriage of
Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 481]. This case is a
long marriage like in Brewster & Clevenger, but the wife in that
7
case was a medical doctor who was employed during the entire
marriage, even though she claimed that she had medical issues
that impaired her ability to work. [Candice] didn’t work the
entire marriage and is still unemployed. Thus, this court finds
that the Family Code [s]ection 4320 factors outweigh the domestic
violence conviction, in light of all of the circumstances that are set
forth below.
“[Candice] testified that she pled guilty to keep her children
from testifying. The court or her attorney should have explained
the consequences to [Candice] on future custody or support orders
if she pled guilty . . . . The court isn’t convinced that [Candice]
pled guilty to keep the children from testifying. Nonetheless,
[Scott] and [Candice] reconciled after her conviction. During that
period of reconciliation, [Scott] had the benefit of [Candice] caring
for the household, cooking his meals, etc. [Scott] also invited
[Candice to] join him at the vet when the dog died.
“Based on the testimony of the parties, there was
substantial dysfunction in their relationship. In the [DVRO]
hearing, both parties admitted to drug use during the marriage.
[Scott] hid money from [Candice] by opening a separate bank
account and sending the statements to his brother’s house, a form
of coercive control as noted above. This was during the same
period when [Candice] contends that there wasn’t enough money
to pay the mortgage and their expenses. [Candice] hid credit
card charges from [Scott]. [Candice’s] spending seems to have
been an issue throughout their marriage. The court does not find
that [Scott] filed criminal charges and a restraining order against
[Candice] to get out of paying support. On the other hand, the
court finds that [Scott] is not completely innocent for the
arguments during their marriage and clearly isn’t afraid of
8
[Candice] based on his conduct in reconciling with her after her
criminal conviction. The children are also not afraid of their
mother, by their insisting to live with her and to have minimal
contact with their father. In fact, the Judge hearing the
restraining order found that Family Code [s]ection 3044 was
rebutted and awarded [Candice] joint custody of the children[,]
finding she had been their primary caretaker during the
marriage. The text messages of flirting between the parties and
[Scott’s] written acknowledgement that he had a good time with
her on a number of occasions are evidence that he wasn’t enforcing
the DVRO until it became convenient when the marriage finally
ended.
“[Candice] has not received any spousal support for the last
two years. The court finds that is enough time for [Scott] to be
relieved of paying spousal support. The court balanced the
rebuttable presumption in Family Code [s]ection 4325 and the
Family Code [s]ection 4320 factors that clearly warrant long term
support. As such, the court is not going to make a retroactive
support order as requested by [Candice].
“[¶] . . . [¶]
“The court [awarded Candice] spousal support” and found
that “based on all of the circumstances of this case, . . . [Candice]
has rebutted the Family Code [s]ection 4325 presumption.”
(Underscoring omitted, italics added.)
The court ordered Scott to pay $4,000 per month in spousal
support to Candice commencing November 1, 2023, and
continuing until October 31, 2029, or upon the death of either
party, Candice’s remarriage, or further order of the court—
whichever occurs first.
9
“The court is not making an Ostler-Smith3 order for spousal
support regarding [Scott’s] overtime. The court notes that [Scott]
earns at least $3,000 per month in overtime every month.
Although it is a long term marriage, but in light of the history of
domestic violence, the court finds that it would be unjust to make
an open ended support order. Therefore, spousal support will
terminate on October 31, 2029. . . . This gives [Candice] five years
to get further training to maximize her earnings and become self-
sufficient.” (Italics added.)
On December 12, 2023, the trial court entered judgment.
On January 18, 2024, Scott timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Scott argues the trial court erred in its interpretation and
application of section 4325. Scott argues the trial court “focused
on Candice’s supposed lack of marketable skills and longstanding
absence from the workplace” and “committed legal error or
otherwise abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion.” He
contends the section 4320 “factors are not meant to apply when
there is a presumption under section 4325, at least not until after
the presumption is rebutted—based on factors independent from
those set forth in section 4320.” (Italics omitted.)
We disagree with Scott’s position and affirm the judgment.
A. Standard of Review
We review an award of spousal support for abuse of
discretion. (In re Marriage of Campi (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th
3 In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 33
[order for additional spousal support based on supporting
spouse’s bonuses is within the trial court’s discretion].
10
1565, 1572). “[W]e do not substitute our judgment for that of the
trial court, and we will disturb the trial court’s decision only if no
judge could have reasonably made the challenged decision.” (In
re Marriage of Cryer (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1046–1047.)
“ ‘An abuse of discretion occurs “where, considering all the
relevant circumstances, the court has exceeded the bounds of
reason or it can fairly be said that no judge would reasonably
make the same order under the same circumstances.” ’ ” (In re
Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 898–899 (Bower).)
However, questions relating to the interpretation of statutes are
matters of law for the reviewing court, subject to de novo review.
(In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151; In re
Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at
p. 514 (Brewster & Clevenger).)
Additionally, “ ‘[a] judgment or order of a lower court is
presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and
presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’ ” (In re
Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 829.) It is
appellant’s burden to “demonstrate, on the basis of the record
presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed
an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v.
Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608−609; Cal. Rules of Court, rules
8.120, 8.122(a)(3) & 8.224; see Bower, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at
p. 898 [the appellant bears the burden to affirmatively show
error].)
B. Applicable Law
Section 4320, subdivision (i), together with section 4325,
embody the principle that an award of spousal support to a party
who has engaged in domestic violence is disfavored. (See In re
Marriage of MacManus (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 330, 335–336
11
[discussing history of section 4320, subdivision (i), and section
4325].)
Section 4325, subdivision (a) provides: “In a proceeding for
dissolution of marriage where there is a criminal conviction for a
domestic violence misdemeanor or a criminal conviction for a
misdemeanor that results in a term of probation pursuant to
section 1203.097 of the Penal Code perpetrated by one spouse
against the other spouse entered by the court within five years
prior to the filing of the dissolution proceeding or during the
course of the dissolution proceeding, there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that the following shall apply: [¶] (1) An award of
spousal support to the convicted spouse from the injured spouse is
prohibited.” (§ 4325, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) Section 4325,
subdivision (b) sets out the “conditions for rebutting this
presumption”: “The court may consider documented evidence of a
convicted spouse’s history as a victim of domestic violence, as
defined by section 6211, perpetrated by the other spouse, or any
other factors the court deems just and equitable, as conditions for
rebutting this presumption.” (Id., subd. (b).) (Italics added.)
“The rebuttable presumption created in this section may be
rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Id., subd. (c).)
Section 4320 provides:
“In ordering spousal support . . . , the court shall consider
all of the following circumstances:
“(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each
party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living
established during the marriage, taking into account all
of the following:
“(1) The marketable skills of the supported party;
the job market for those skills; the time and
12
expenses required for the supported party to
acquire the appropriate education or training to
develop those skills; and the possible need for
retraining or education to acquire to acquire other,
more marketable skills or employment.
“(2) The extent to which the supported party’s
present or future earning capacity is impaired by
periods of unemployment that were incurred
during the marriage to permit the supported party
to devote time to domestic duties.
“(b) The extent to which the supported party contributed
to the attainment of an education, training, a career
position, or a license by the supporting party.
“(c) The ability of the supporting party to pay spousal
support, taking into account the supporting party’s
earning capacity, earned and unearned income, assets,
and standard of living.
“(d) The needs of each party based on the standard of
living established during the marriage.
“(e) The obligations and assets, including the separate
property, of each party.
“(f) The duration of the marriage.
“(g) The ability of the supported party to engage in
gainful employment without unduly interfering with
the interests of dependent children in the custody of the
party.
“(h) The age and health of the parties.
“(i) All documented evidence of any history of domestic
violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties
13
or perpetrated by either party against either party’s
child, including, but not limited to, consideration of:
“(1) A plea of nolo contendere.
“(2) Emotional distress resulting from domestic
violence perpetrated against supported party by
the supporting party.
“(3) Any history of violence against the supporting
party by the supported party.
“(4) Issuance of a protective order after a hearing
pursuant to Section 6340.
“(5) A finding by a court during the pendency of a
divorce . . . proceeding, . . . that the spouse has
committed domestic violence.
“[¶] . . . [¶]
“(k) The balance of the hardships to each party.
“[¶] . . . [¶]
“(m) The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall
be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a
spousal support award in accordance with Section
4324.5 or 4325.
“(n) Any other factors the court determines are just and
equitable.” (§ 4320, italics added.)
C. Analysis
The question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in
finding Candice rebutted the section 4325 presumption. We find
no error in the trial court’s implementation of section 4325 and
conclude that the trial court carefully weighed the evidence and
acted within its discretion in finding the presumption rebutted.
14
Scott first contends the trial court’s implementation of the
statute “is at odds with the rules of statutory interpretation” in
that the trial court’s weighing of section 4320 “factors are not
meant to apply when there is a presumption under section 4325,
at least not until after the presumption is rebutted—based on
factors independent from those set forth in section 4320.” (First
italics added.)
Section 4325 does not automatically bar or prohibit spousal
support when the supported party has been convicted of domestic
violence against the supporting spouse within the statutory time
period; it creates a presumption that can be rebutted. Section
4325’s subdivision (b) is especially important, as it directs the
court to consider, in lieu of documented evidence of a convicted
spouse’s history as a domestic violence victim perpetrated by the
other spouse, “any other factors the court deems just and
equitable, as conditions for rebutting this presumption.” (§ 4325,
subd. (b), italics added.) The language of the statute expressly
vests the trial court with broad equitable authority in evaluating
“any other factors” relevant to its determination to prohibit (or
award) spousal support to the restrained spouse.
In determining whether the presumption is rebutted,
nothing in section 4325, subdivision (b) precludes the trial court
from considering the relevant factors set forth in section 4320 as
“any other factors the court deems just and equitable.” In fact,
subdivision (b) of section 4325 provides no restrictions or
limitations in the trial court’s consideration of any factor in
making its determination, so long as the trial court finds it “just
and equitable.” Additionally, section 4320—entitled
“considerations” for the “determination of amount due for
support”—sets forth the factors a trial court evaluates when
15
ordering spousal support. (§ 4320 [“In ordering spousal support
under [this section], the court shall consider all of the following
circumstances”].) That includes, inter alia, documented evidence
of any history of domestic violence between the parties. (Id.,
subd. (i).) Subdivision (i) of section 4320 goes hand in hand with
section 4325. Section 4325, subdivision (b)’s broad “just and
equitable” language permits consideration of the entire marital
context. We see no error in the trial court’s interpretation of
section 4325.
During oral argument, Scott argued California case law has
specified that the trial court is not required to consider section
4320’s factors when making a section 4325 determination. Scott
cited In re Marriage of Cauley (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1100. But
Scott misinterprets the analysis in Marriage of Cauley, which
provides: “Appellant next contends that the trial court abused its
discretion in terminating spousal support without considering the
factors of section 4320. We disagree. When a supported spouse
fails to rebut the presumption of section 4325, ‘support to the
abusive spouse otherwise awardable pursuant to the standards of
this part should not be made.’ Both sections 4320 and 4325 are
included in part 3, chapter 2 of the Family Code.” (Marriage of
Cauley, at pp. 1108–1109, fn. omitted.) We conclude the analysis
in Marriage of Cauley is expressly limited to circumstances where
“a supported spouse fails to rebut the presumption of section
4325.” (Ibid.) Here, the trial court concluded Candice
successfully rebutted the section 4325 presumption, leaving no
issue with the trial court’s consideration of section 4320’s factors.
Next, Scott argues the trial court abused its discretion in
ruling that section 4325’s presumption was rebutted. In
reviewing a trial court’s exercise of discretion, we consider
16
whether or not the trial court “exceeded the bounds of reason, all
of the circumstances before it being considered.” (In re Marriage
of Connolly (1979) 23 Cal.3d 590, 598.) The burden is on the
complaining party to establish abuse of discretion. (Blank v.
Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.) The showing on appeal is
insufficient if it presents a state of facts that affords only an
opportunity for a difference of opinion. (In re Marriage of
Rothrock (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 223, 230.)
We find no abuse of discretion. The trial court’s detailed
findings indicate that it considered the DVRO against Candice,
both parties’ trial testimony, and the admitted evidence (such as
the parties’ text messages and Talking Parents communications)
in conjunction with section 4325’s rebuttable presumption and
section 4320’s spousal support factors. The trial court
acknowledged the DVRO and section 4325’s presumption and
indicated it “reviewed” the few cases interpreting section 4325.
The trial court took into account that the parties had a “marriage
of long duration as it is 18 years long” and that Candice “did not
work the entire marriage,” had “no current marketable skills,”
and “devoted her entire marriage to taking care of the home and
their children.” The trial court noted Scott “earned enough to
support the entire family without [Candice] needing to work.”
The court found Scott “was able to work, including overtime, due
to the fact that [Candice] was taking care of the household and
the children” and the children are “still living with and being
supported solely by [Candice].” The court further found there
was “substantial dysfunction” in the parties’ relationship and, at
the DVRO hearing, both parties had admitted to drug use during
the marriage. The court found Scott “is not completely innocent
for the arguments during their marriage and clearly isn’t afraid
17
of [Candice] based on his conduct in reconciling with her after her
criminal conviction”; the court referred to the parties’ text
messages as “evidence that [Scott] wasn’t enforcing the DVRO
until it became convenient when the marriage finally ended.”
Evidence of the foregoing facts matter, because section
4325 was enacted partly to protect victims of domestic violence
from having to financially support their abuser. (See Assem.
Com. on Judiciary, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1221
(2001–2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 23, 2001, p. 3 [“The
author argues that spousal support orders in such domestic
violence cases potentially force victims of abuse to remain
dangerously entangled in the abuser’s web of violence and
intimidation.”].) However, if the protected party (Scott)
repeatedly disregards the DVRO in place, voluntarily seeks
contact from the restrained party (Candice), and flirts and
behaves romantically towards the restrained party, the trial
court could reasonably conclude that the equities of this
particular case differ substantially from the ordinary domestic
violence case. Scott’s conduct subsequent to the issuance of his
requested DVRO substantially diminished the weight of the
public policy concerns that section 4325 was designed to address.
Based on its weighing of factors, the trial court denied two
years of retroactive spousal support, denied Candice an award of
Ostler-Smith percentage of Scott’s overtime income as additional
spousal support, and reduced the spousal support term from
permanent (to which Candice had a right since the parties had a
long-term marriage) to only six years—set to expire on October
31, 2029. Thus, the trial court effectively imposed meaningful
financial consequences for the domestic violence while still
preventing extreme economic hardship to Candice. This ruling
18
demonstrates the trial court gave meaningful effect to section
4325 as well as section 4320, based on the parties’ trial testimony
and evidence supporting rebuttal of the presumption. The trial
court’s weighing of all the facts is the polar opposite of abuse of
discretion or legal error.
Besides the section 4325 considerations, the findings under
section 4320 were particularly strong—an 18-year marriage, no
employment by Candice throughout marriage, no current
marketable skills, primary caregiver for the parties’ children,
complete dependence on Scott’s earnings— and strongly implicate
the Legislature’s policy favoring support following long-term
marriages. Candice’s circumstances and earning capacity are in
stark contrast to the circumstances of the restrained wife Mary
Kay in Brewster & Clevenger, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 481, since
Mary Kay was a physician and “had an obstetrics/ gynecology
practice and provided medical weight loss services” whereas
Candice had not worked in at least 18 years. (Id. at p. 485.)
Ignoring section 4320’s factors would have itself constituted
reversible error. The trial court instead exercised its broad
equitable powers to balance them against section 4325’s
rebuttable presumption. (See § 4325, subd. (b); see also § 4320,
subd. (i).)
Additionally, the trial court found Scott’s intentional
concealment and withholding of part of his income from Candice
qualified as coercive control, which section 6320, subdivision
(c)(3) expressly recognizes as domestic abuse. (§ 6320, subd. (c)
[“Examples of coercive control include, but are not limited to,
unreasonably engaging in any of the following: [¶] . . . [¶]
(3) Controlling, regulating . . . the other party’s . . . finances,
economic resources”].) The trial court reasonably considered
19
Scott’s own abusive conduct as an equitable factor and did not
exceed the bounds of reason by finding Candice’s financial
circumstances sufficient to outweigh the public policy underlying
the section 4325 presumption.
Scott argues that our affirmance of the underlying
judgment would undermine the legislative policy of discouraging
domestic violence. We disagree and believe that affirmance
actually advances both legislative policies of protecting domestic
violence victims and preventing a financially dependent spouse
from becoming destitute after a long marriage. Rather than
awarding permanent spousal support, the court limited Candice
recovery by denying retroactive support and an Ostler-Smith
share of Scott’s overtime pay and setting a non-modifiable
termination date, demonstrating that it gave meaningful effect to
domestic violence considerations while still preventing an
inequitable outcome.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The parties are to bear their
own costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
WILEY, J. SCHERB, J.
20