Legal Opinion
In Re Marriage of Bower
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 4, 2002No. B151217PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
Wife unsuccessfully appeals from orders reducing and then terminating spousal support and denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs. She contends that the trial court (1) erroneously applied Family Code section 4323 (presumption of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a person of the opposite sex), (2) failed to give adequate reasons for its order reducing and terminating spousal support, and (3) abused its discretion in denying attorney’s fees and costs.
Notwithstanding the manner in which the contentions are phrased, in reality…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Estate of GilkisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Southern California Enterprises, Inc. v. D. N. & E. Walter & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- In Re Marriage of SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In Re Marriage of Falcone & FykeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Lucas v. LucasWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2003
- Geraci v. GeraciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- In Re Marriage of FriedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Estate of O'Connor v. O'Connor, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.