Appellate court reverses divorcing lawyers’ support award based on erroneous math

[*ruling attached below]

An appellate court panel reversed and remanded a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge's award of alimony in the divorce of two lawyers, saying the amount was miscalculated and failed to account for taxes.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal determined Tuesday that respondent Bruce G. Chapman of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP may owe appellant Kristin Hiibner of Karish & Bjorgum PC more spousal support than was initially determined.

The appellate court in an unpublished opinion agreed with Hiibner's argument that the trial court's award confuses pre-tax and post-tax figures, resulting in a miscalculation.

Superior Court Judge Mark A. Juhas had ordered Chapman to pay Hiibner $10,000 in monthly spousal support, which the appellate court determined was not supported by substantial evidence.

"Indeed, we cannot reconcile the seemingly arbitrary figure of $10,000 per month after taxes with the evidence, other than to observe that $10,000 is somewhere between what Hiibner requested ($16,000 ...) and what Chapman proposed to pay ($6,700 reduced to $5,143 after taxes ...)," according to the opinion written by Justice John L. Segal. Justices Dennis M. Perluss and John Shepard Wiley Jr. concurred.

"We're pleased with the outcome," said Hiibner's attorney, Gregory R. Ellis of Law Offices of Gregory R. Ellis.

Chapman's attorney, Claudia Ribet of Ribet & Silver, said she was disappointed with the result. Scott M. Klopert of Klopert & Ravden LLP, who also represented Chapman, declined to comment.

The unanimous opinion cited Family Code Section 4330, which requires a court to determine a "just and reasonable" amount of spousal support "based on the standard of living established during the marriage." The court must also account for factors listed in Section 4320, which include the parties' earning capacity, assets and health.

Chapman described the marital standard of living as "upper-middle class" while Hiibner described it as "high," according to the appellate opinion. Chapman's monthly income in 2015 was $63,245 while Hiibner's was $5,640. Hiibner requested $16,000 to maintain her standard of living.

In May 2016, the trial court awarded Hiibner $10,000 a month, suggesting the alimony combined with her $5,000 in monthly income would meet the determined marital standard of $16,000. In re Marriage of Chapman and Hiibner*, B278439 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist. Aug. 14, 2018).

However, there was confusion throughout the trial about whether the calculations took income taxes on the spousal support into account, according to the appellate opinion: "$5,000 + $10,000 = $15,000 before taxes is substantially less than $16,000 after taxes.

The court of appeal ordered the trial court to recalculate spousal support by weighing factors in Section 4320 against the marital standard of living as well as to make a determination on an unaddressed request for a life insurance policy.

"Because the trial court mixed gross apples and net oranges, the spousal support award must be reversed," according to the opinion.