Marriage Of Watt

214 Cal.App.3d 340 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W married June 17, 1972, and separated nine and one-half years later on December 15, 1981. In 1974, they moved to Hawaii so H could continue his studies there. The couple had no children. H was a full-time student for the entire nine and one-half years of the marriage, advancing from an undergraduate program to postgraduate studies and finally, medical school; he received his medical degree five months after separation. W worked full-time during the marriage, using all of her income for family expenses. For the years 1975 through 1981 the combined gross income was $81,779.92, of which W contributed $66,923.92 in earnings and H contributed $14,856. H's student loans totaled $26,642. H used at least $3,000 in loan funds for direct educational expenses (tuition, books, fees), leaving approximately $23,642 for the couple's living expenses. For the past 17 years, W has worked as a pharmacy clerk and, since 1979, as a pharmacy technician. Following separation, W held two part-time jobs, working sometimes sixty hours per week to meet monthly living expenses. In 1986, she assumed a full-time position at Kaiser. During their marriage, W talked about the possibility of attending school for culinary arts. At trial, W said she would like to enroll in the 16-month program at the California Culinary Academy in San Francisco. Her aspiration is to start her own catering business. H is now is an anesthesiologist with the Permanente Medical Group. In 1987, his annual salary was approximately $94,000. With overtime, his actual income has been much higher. The trial court found that W did not really contribute to H's education as it 'was minimal to the point of 'de minimis non curat lex''; W evidenced no need for spousal support, retraining or education to obtain more marketable skills/employment; and the couple's standard of living during the marriage did not exceed W's present standard of living. The court determined there were no community contributions which should be reimbursed. P appealed.