## Facts

- Katherine and Jeffrey Graham married in 1992 and had two children.
- During the marriage, Jeffrey enrolled in law school; the community paid over $12,000 in tuition and related expenses.
- Jeffrey also incurred a student loan for law school, which he treated as his separate debt at trial.
- At trial (September 2000), Jeffrey had one semester remaining, a cumulative GPA around 2.2, and no plan to take the California bar exam; he was employed as a police officer earning over $4,400 per month.
- Katherine was a registered nurse; after separation she worked per diem rather than full time.
- Jeffrey filed for dissolution in June 1999.
- The trial court denied Katherine’s request for reimbursement of community education expenses under Family Code § 2641.
- For child support, the trial court imputed Katherine’s gross monthly income at $5,618.08 based on a 36-hour workweek and an elevated hourly rate for the last four hours of each shift.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Code § 2641 required reimbursement to the community for law-school expenses where any increased earning capacity from the education was uncertain.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imputing income to Katherine based on a 36-hour workweek at per diem rates.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by using an excessive hourly rate for the last four hours of each shift when computing imputed income for child support.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of reimbursement under Family Code § 2641 because any substantial enhancement of Jeffrey’s earning capacity from law school was too uncertain on this record.
- The court affirmed imputing income to Katherine based on a 36-hour workweek at a per diem rate.
- The court reversed the child support calculation to the extent it assumed an unsupported elevated hourly rate for the last four hours of each shift.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to recalculate child support consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Reimbursement under Family Code § 2641 requires proof that community contributions to a spouse’s education or training substantially enhanced that spouse’s earning capacity.
- When the claimed enhancement depends on uncertain future events (such as completing schooling, passing a licensing exam, or changing professions), a court may find the enhancement too speculative to support reimbursement.
- In setting child support, a court may impute income based on a parent’s earning capacity, including reasonably supported assumptions about available work and hours.
- Imputed-income calculations must be grounded in evidence; assumptions about premium pay or overtime rates not supported by the record constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court held that community-funded law-school expenses were not reimbursable because any earnings increase was speculative where the spouse had not completed school and lacked plans to pursue licensure, and it required recalculation of child support where the trial court’s imputed-income figure relied on an unsupported premium hourly-rate assumption.


In re Marriage of Graham, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1321 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)