Request for Order Change of Spousal Support; Imputation of Income; Gavron Warning; Seek Work Order
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 EMILY MEGHAN MORROW HOWE,) Case Number: FDI-25-802119) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DYLAN WISEMAN,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGE OF SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, IMPUTATION OF 13 INCOME/ GAVRON WARNING/ SEEK WORK ORDER 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.
Procedural History 18 1) Petitioner Emily Howe (Wife) and Respondent Dylan Wiseman (Husband) married on 8/17/2018. 19 The agree they separated on 10/1/2025, for a marriage of 7 years and 1 month. The parties do not 20 have minor children. Wife is represented by attorney Kelly Gamble. Husband is represented by 21 attorney Louise Sackley. 22 2) On 1/13/2026, a Stipulation and Order for Temporary Spousal Support and Attorney Fees and 23 Costs was entered which provides in relevant part: 24 a. Effective 11/1/2025, Husband shall pay Wife $8,513 per month in temporary spousal 25 support. 26 b.
Husband shall pay Smith / Ostler temporary spousal support to Wife. 27 c. Husband shall pay $10,000 towards Wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. 28 3) Now on for hearing is Husband’s Request for Order filed 5/28/2026 asking the Court to modify 29 the temporary spousal support order. Husband asks the Court to impute at least $200,000 in
1 annual income to Wife; in the alternative, Husband asks the Court to subject Wife to a Seek Work 2 Order and issue a Gavron warning. Husband states his base salary has decreased and Wife’s 3 income has increased, which warrants a modification of temporary spousal support. Husband also 4 claims that Wife is underemployed, both in terms of the number of hours she is working (she 5 works 30 hours per week) as well as the income she is earning. Husband states that Wife is 6 capable of earning at least $200,000 annually. 7 4) On 5/28/2026, Husband filed a Declaration of Lisa Trustin, vocational consultant.
Ms. Trustin 8 states that she was retained to prepare a labor market report regarding the employability and 9 earning capacity of someone of Wife’s background, education, and experience. Ms. Trustin 10 writes, “Ms. Howe has 25 years of work experience in marketing and brand management for 11 educational institutions, media, communications, consulting companies, individuals and most 12 recently, for a law firm in the San Francisco Bay Area.” According to Ms. Trustin, someone with 13 Wife's education, background, and experience could qualify for positions such as Creative 14 Marketing Lead, Public Relations, Media and Events Manager, Director of Brand Marketing, 15 Brand and Content Lead, Marketing and Communications Manager, and Solutions Marketing 16 Lead.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Ms. Trustin states that based on information found within the California EDD’s 17 Occupational Employment and Wage Data and Salary.com, someone with Wife’s background, 18 education, and experience could earn between $171,704 and $241,630 based on a variety of job 19 titles – advertising and promotion managers, marketing managers, PR Manager, PR Director, and 20 Strategic Marketing Director. 21 5) On 6/24/2026, Wife filed an Income and Expense Declaration. Wife states that she works 30 22 hours per week and earns $7,500 per month as a marketing lead for OIG.
Wife also states that she 23 earns on average $200 per month from her DEI consulting business. Wife writes that she has 24 experienced a change in income because “My industry, DEI, is now prohibited.” 25 6) On 7/17/2026, Wife filed a Responsive Declaration. Wife agrees to modify spousal support but 26 asks that the Court deny Husband’s request to impute additional income to her or to subject her to 27 a Seek Work Order. Wife states that she agrees to a Gavron warning. Wife states that Husband 28 stopped paying her the full amount of temporary spousal support owed to her under the 29 stipulation and has unilaterally been paying her $6,679 per month based on Husband’s new
1 support calculations. Wife also states that Husband has not paid her what she is owed for Smith / 2 Ostler temporary spousal support. Wife asks that the Court use Husband’s total projected annual 3 compensation rather than his base salary. Wife states that Ms. Trustin never interviewed her or 4 inquired about her actual job responsibilities throughout her career. Wife contends Ms. Trustin 5 substantially overstates her earning capacity. Wife provided her earnings history, which show that 6 between 2000 – present, she earned in the range of $28,000 to $145,000 per year and she is 7 currently earning $90,000 working 30 hours per week.
Her job titles have included Academic 8 Technology Program Manager; Women's and Gender Studies Manager; Public Relations 9 Communications Director; Executive Assistant; Director of Change Management and 10 Communications; Manager and Consultant, Organizational Transformation; Founder and 11 Consultant; and (currently) Marketing Lead. Wife writes, “Viewed as a whole, my career has 12 consistently focused on communications, organizational change, public relations, consulting, 13 executive coaching, and higher education.
I have marketed my own consulting practice, helped 14 market a small consulting firm, and now market OIG, but before joining OIG I had never been 15 employed to market a business as my profession. Likewise, I have never held positions 16 responsible for product marketing, demand generation, marketing analytics, marketing 17 technology, sales pipeline management, or leading a corporate marketing department. Those are 18 the skills someone garnering 200K salary would need; not to mention experience actually doing 19 it.”
Wife also states that she owns a consulting business which generates income from several 20 sources, including DEI-related consulting, coaching, speaking, workshops, programs, and helping 21 professionals develop DEI-related leadership skills and attract clients. However, “Beginning 22 around 2024, the market for DEI in the workplace dramatically shifted and nearly all of my 23 consulting work disappeared. My online programs also declined because they were closely tied to 24 DEI. Rather than remain unemployed or wait for the market to recover, I sought stable 25 employment while continuing to maintain my consulting business on a much smaller scale (26 currently one program and approximately $1,700 in the business account).” 27 7) On 7/28/2026, Husband filed a Reply Declaration reiterating his original requests.
Husband 28 states, “Ms. Trustin's report does not characterize Emily's background as senior corporate 29 marketing...Nor does the report provide salary data for only senior corporate marketing jobs. It
1 includes PR, Media and Events Manager, Brand and Content Lead job listings and salary data for 2 PR roles.” Husband states that he only received additional income in March 2026 and July 2026. 3 Husband states he did not pay Smith / Ostler support in March 2026 because he was not 4 expecting additional income during that month as bonuses are not typically paid in March. 5 Husband also states, “The total amount of bonus temporary spousal support due to Emily is 6 $10,556.09. I have paid Emily $9,848 and will pay the remaining $708.09 forthwith.” 7 8) On 7/28/2026, Husband filed an Amended Income and Expense Declaration.
Husband states that 8 he is a lawyer for Buchalter, LLP. He states that he works 45 – 50 hours per week. The paystubs 9 attached to Husband’s Income and Expense Declaration show that he earns on average $38,841 10 per month in base salary. Husband states that he earns on average $16,211 in bonuses per month. 11 Husband also reports earning $1,091 per month in net rental income (not including depreciation). 12 9) On 7/28/2026, Husband filed a Statement of Support Calculations. 13 B. Findings and Order 14 1) The Court finds that the parties’ recent changes in income are material changes in circumstance 15 warranting a modification of the current temporary spousal support order. 16 2) Effective 6/1/2026, in accordance with the XSpouse calculation attached hereto and incorporated 17 herein, Husband shall pay to Wife temporary base guideline spousal support of $4,619 per month. 18 Support shall be paid in two equal installments on the first and fifteenth day of the month. 19 3) The parties shall meet and confer to determine whether base or Smith / Ostler support arrears or 20 credits are owed for the period 6/1/2026 – 7/31/2026.
Husband shall pay any additional support 21 arrears or credits no later than 9/30/2026. 22 4) In the event that Husband receives any gross income over and above the amounts listed on the 23 XSpouse calculation, said income shall be applied to the bonus table attached to the XSpouse 24 calculation. Within 5 days of receipt of additional income, Husband shall calculate the amount of 25 additional spousal support due to Wife, issue a check to her for the amount due, and provide her 26 with proof of the additional income received, for example, a paystub.
Within 10 days of receipt, 27 Wife shall review the calculation and advise Husband if she disagrees with the calculation. 28 5) The Xspouse contains inputs on which the parties agree. For the inputs for which the parties do 29 not agree, the Court makes the following findings and orders.
1 a. Wife’s request that the Court use Husband’s total anticipated annual compensation in the 2 XSpouse calculation is denied. The Court will use Husband’s base salary and subject 3 additional earnings to a Smith / Ostler order as set forth above. 4 b. Husband’s request to impute to Wife $200,000 in annual income is denied. The Court is 5 not fully persuaded that Wife can earn this level of income. The Court finds this amount 6 exceeds Wife’s historical earnings to date. The Court also notes that Ms.
Trustin did not 7 interview Wife directly; had she done so, Ms. Trustin’s analysis would have been more 8 persuasive. Wife currently earns $7,500 per month while working 30 hours per week, or 9 approximately $57.69 per hour. No evidence was presented demonstrating that Wife is 10 unable to work full time. The Court further notes that Wife's consulting business is 11 presently generating minimal income, and Wife could devote those additional hours to 12 compensated employment. Based on the totality of the evidence before it, including Ms. 13 Trustin’s report, the Court finds that Wife has the ability and opportunity to work 40 14 hours per week at a rate of $57.69 per hour, or $10,000 per month.
The Court will impute 15 earning capacity to Wife in the amount of $10,000 per month. This finding is made 16 without prejudice to the Court’s ability to find that Wife is capable of earning more than 17 this amount when it determines long-term / post-Judgment spousal support. 18 c. The Court will also input as additional taxable income for Wife $216 per month in 19 average interest income and $758 per month in average non-qualified dividend income, 20 which Husband states Wife reported in her 2025 tax return. 21 6) Husband’s unopposed request for a Gavron warning is granted.
Pursuant to Family Code section 22 4330(b), the Court advises Wife that she is expected to make reasonable good faith efforts to 23 become self-supporting. Failure to make such reasonable good faith efforts may be considered by 24 the Court as a factor in determining whether spousal support should be modified or terminated. 25 7) Husband’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 26 8) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 27 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 28 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 29 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the
1 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 2 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 3 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 4
8
12
16
20
24
28
howe v. wiseman xspouse.xsp Xspouse 2026-1-CA
Fixed Shares Husband Wife Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 0 0 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 0.00 % 0.00 % Comb. net spendable 29043 29043 Filing status MFS-> <-MFS GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 0% # exemptions 1 * 1 * Nets(adjusted) Husband Wages+salary 38841 10000 Husband 21267 Payment cost/benefit -4619 -4619 Self-employed income 0 0 Wife 7776 Net spendable income 16648 16648 Other taxable income 1091 974 Total 29043 Change from guideline 0 0 TANF+CS received 0 0 Support Other nontaxble income 0 0 Addons % of combined spendable 57% 57% 0 New spouse income 0 0 Guideln CS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 0 401(k) employee contrib 2708 0 Total taxes 12383 12383 S.Clara SS 4619 Adjustments to income 295 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 4619 SS paid prev marriage 5000 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 - CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Net wage paycheck 19006 19006 Health insurance 1282 0 Wife Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 4619 4619 Property tax expense 1372 0 Net spendable income 12395 12395 Ded interest expense 1495 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 0 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 43% 43% Misc tax deductions 0 0 CS 0 Qual bus income ded 0 0 SS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 4619 Required union dues 0 0 Total Total taxes 3198 3198 4619 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 * 0 * Saving 0 # withholding allowances 0w 0w Other GDL deductions 0 0 Releases 0 Net wage paycheck 6824 6824 Child care expenses 0 0
Husband pays Guideline SS, Proposed SS
Time: 02:07:21 Superior Court of California Date: 08/03/26 County of San Francisco
8/3/26, 2:07 AM Annual Bonus Income 2026-08-03 02:06:57 Superior Court of California Xspouse 2026-1-CA County of San Francisco howe v. wiseman xspouse.xsp
Annual Bonus Income Husband Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Annual bonus paid to Wife: 0 R = recipient of support Prior relationship(s): OFF
Additional Cost to Husband Child Support Spousal Support Total CS Total SS Husband's Bonus % of bonus $ % of bonus $ (adjusted) 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 5,000 0.00 0 20.82 1,041 0 56,469 10,000 0.00 0 20.82 2,082 0 57,510 15,000 0.00 0 20.82 3,123 0 58,551 20,000 0.00 0 20.82 4,164 0 59,592 25,000 0.00 0 20.76 5,191 0 60,619 30,000 0.00 0 20.71 6,212 0 61,640 35,000 0.00 0 20.61 7,214 0 62,643 40,000 0.00 0 20.49 8,195 0 63,624 45,000 0.00 0 20.39 9,176 0 64,605 50,000 0.00 0 20.31 10,157 0 65,586 55,000 0.00 0 20.25 11,138 0 66,567 60,000 0.00 0 20.20 12,119 0 67,548 65,000 0.00 0 20.15 13,100 0 68,529 70,000 0.00 0 20.12 14,081 0 69,510 75,000 0.00 0 20.08 15,062 0 70,491 80,000 0.00 0 20.05 16,043 0 71,472 85,000 0.00 0 20.03 17,024 0 72,453 90,000 0.00 0 20.01 18,005 0 73,434 95,000 0.00 0 19.99 18,986 0 74,415 100,000 0.00 0 19.96 19,960 0 75,388 105,000 0.00 0 19.92 20,921 0 76,349 110,000 0.00 0 19.89 21,882 0 77,310 115,000 0.00 0 19.86 22,843 0 78,271 120,000 0.00 0 19.84 23,804 0 79,232 125,000 0.00 0 19.81 24,765 0 80,193 130,000 0.00 0 19.79 25,726 0 81,154 135,000 0.00 0 19.77 26,687 0 82,115 140,000 0.00 0 19.75 27,648 0 83,076 145,000 0.00 0 19.73 28,609 0 84,037 150,000 0.00 0 19.71 29,570 0 84,998 155,000 0.00 0 19.70 30,531 0 85,959 160,000 0.00 0 19.68 31,492 0 86,920 165,000 0.00 0 19.67 32,453 0 87,881 170,000 0.00 0 19.66 33,414 0 88,842 175,000 0.00 0 19.64 34,375 0 89,803 180,000 0.00 0 19.63 35,336 0 90,764 185,000 0.00 0 19.62 36,297 0 91,725 190,000 0.00 0 19.61 37,258 0 92,686 195,000 0.00 0 19.60 38,219 0 93,647 200,000 0.00 0 19.59 39,180 0 94,608 205,000 0.00 0 19.58 40,141 0 95,569 210,000 0.00 0 19.57 41,102 0 96,530 215,000 0.00 0 19.56 42,063 0 97,491 220,000 0.00 0 19.56 43,024 0 98,452
file:///C:/Users/eeib/AppData/Local/Temp/3/Xtemp/AnnualBonus.html 1/2
8/3/26, 2:07 AM Annual Bonus Income 2026-08-03 02:06:57 Superior Court of California Xspouse 2026-1-CA County of San Francisco howe v. wiseman xspouse.xsp
Annual Bonus Income Husband Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Annual bonus paid to Wife: 0 R = recipient of support Prior relationship(s): OFF
Additional Cost to Husband Child Support Spousal Support Total CS Total SS Husband's Bonus % of bonus $ % of bonus $ (adjusted) 225,000 0.00 0 19.55 43,985 0 99,413 230,000 0.00 0 19.54 44,946 0 100,374 235,000 0.00 0 19.53 45,907 0 101,335 240,000 0.00 0 19.53 46,868 0 102,296 245,000 0.00 0 19.52 47,829 0 103,257 250,000 0.00 0 19.52 48,790 0 104,218
file:///C:/Users/eeib/AppData/Local/Temp/3/Xtemp/AnnualBonus.html 2/2