Opinion ID: 1357872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Ability to Pay

Text: The granting or denying of awards for suit money and child support rests largely in the discretion of the trial court; its decision will not be disturbed on appeal without a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. ( Baldwin v. Baldwin, 28 Cal.2d 406, 413 [170 P.2d 670]; Dickens v. Dickens, 82 Cal. App.2d 717, 722 [187 P.2d 91].) In the present case plaintiff's need, the children's need, and the reasonableness of the amounts awarded, were established by substantial evidence. An abuse of discretion is shown only if it is established as a matter of law that the trial judge could not reasonably conclude that defendant had the ability to meet the payments. In determining the amount of the allowance under sections 137, 137.5, 138, and 139 of the Civil Code, the trial judge must take into account the defendant's ability to pay. ( Sweeley v. Sweeley, 28 Cal.2d. 389, 394 [170 P.2d 469]; Arnold v. Arnold, 215 Cal. 613, 615 [12 P.2d 435].) The orders, however, need not be based upon the actual income of the husband. They may be based solely upon his ability to earn money by the use of reasonable effort. ( Webber v. Webber, 33 Cal.2d 153, 160 [199 P.2d 934]; Eidenmuller v. Eidenmuller, 37 Cal. 364, 366; McGann v. McGann, 82 Cal. App.2d 382, 389-390 [186 P.2d 424].) Thus, in Tompkins v. Tompkins, 83 Cal. App.2d 71 [187 P.2d 840], the court upheld an allowance of support against a husband who had not worked for many months, accepting the wife's contention that a guilty party cannot avoid the responsibility for payment of alimony by the simple expedient of avoiding employment. (83 Cal. App.2d at p. 79.) The record establishes that defendant had been employed as a steamship company executive for many years, earning from $500 to $1,000 per month. Since the divorce he has lived with his wealthy aunt in Nevada. He testified that he had no money or property and that his aunt paid all his bills and gave him pocket money. Defendant was 47 years old at the time of trial. When asked if he had made any efforts to get a job, he replied: I had tried several times in New York. It is no easy thing to go in and get a job as president, the job that I had done; most companies have their own presidents. Defendant testified that he had high blood pressure and that his doctor had advised him not to work. The doctor was not called as a witness and defendant's testimony regarding his health was not corroborated. Plaintiff testified that defendant's health had been good during their marriage. Defendant had an interest in the outcome of the case, and it was to his advantage to claim that he was unable to work. The trier of fact was entitled to disbelieve his testimony that he was in poor health. ( Huth v. Katz, 30 Cal.2d 605, 609 [184 P.2d 521]; Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 462 [126 P.2d 868].) In an apposite case, a reduction of alimony was upheld on the ground that the trial court could judge from the appearance of the [wife] as to whether she was or was not physically able to earn any part of the money necessary for her own support. The replies of the [wife] ... upon the cold record indicate at least a lack of any real disposition on the part of the [wife] to earn any part of her own living. ( Lamborn v. Lamborn, 80 Cal. App. 494, 498 [251 P. 943].) Similarly, in the present case the trier of fact could conclude that it was defendant's distaste for physical exertion that precluded his obtaining employment. In this proceeding we are not concerned with problems that might arise if defendant should refuse to pay the amounts ordered by the trial court. Under an early decision of this court a deliberate refusal to work could not be punished by contempt ( Ex parte Todd, 119 Cal. 57, 58 [50 P. 1071]), but ordinary judgment remedies would be available and the judgment could be satisfied if defendant should inherit or otherwise obtain property. Moreover, the threat of execution upon any subsequently acquired property ( cf. Di Corpo v. Di Corpo, 33 Cal.2d 195, 201 [200 P.2d 529]) might be sufficient to induce defendant to work. I am therefore of the opinion that the orders for suit money [] and for future support of the children should be affirmed. Since the awards for past support for the children and the wife are reversed on additional grounds these also must be considered.