## Facts

- Husband and wife were married for approximately 18 years.
- During dissolution proceedings, husband sought a temporary restraining order based on alleged threats and physical attacks; the request was later taken off calendar as part of the parties’ settlement.
- The parties entered a stipulated judgment requiring husband to pay wife $5,250 per month in spousal support.
- The judgment stated support would continue until wife’s remarriage, death of either party, or further court order, and described support as “non-modifiable” except for wife’s cohabitation or husband’s disability/job loss; the court retained jurisdiction over spousal support for a stated period.
- After the settlement (and close in time to entry of judgment), wife traveled to husband’s residence, damaged property, and sprayed herbicide in husband’s face.
- Wife was criminally convicted of intraspousal domestic violence against husband.
- Husband moved post-judgment to terminate spousal support under California Family Code § 4325.
- The trial court applied § 4325’s rebuttable presumption against awarding support to a convicted abuser, found the presumption unrebutted, and terminated support.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Code § 4325’s rebuttable presumption against spousal support to a spouse convicted of domestic violence applies despite a stipulated judgment describing support as “non-modifiable” except on specified grounds.
2. Whether the convicted spouse presented sufficient evidence to rebut the § 4325 presumption and retain spousal support.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order terminating spousal support.
- Section 4325 applied notwithstanding the parties’ “non-modifiable” support language.
- Wife did not rebut the statutory presumption; termination of future support payments was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Family Code § 4325 creates a rebuttable presumption that a spouse convicted of domestic violence against the other spouse should not receive spousal support from the victim spouse.
- Parties cannot, by private agreement incorporated into a dissolution judgment, prevent application of statutory spousal-support limits grounded in public policy.
- A support term stating payments continue “until further order of the court,” and the court’s retained jurisdiction, support the court’s authority to modify or terminate support when a statutory presumption applies.
- The burden to rebut § 4325’s presumption rests on the convicted spouse; without adequate rebuttal, the court may terminate support prospectively based on the conviction and related record.

## Conclusion

The court held that the statutory presumption against support to a spouse convicted of domestic violence applies even when a stipulated judgment labels support “non-modifiable,” and it upheld termination of spousal support because the convicted spouse failed to rebut the presumption.


In re Marriage of Cauley, 138 Cal. App. 4th 1100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)