Marriage of C.A. and Y.A. CA3

Filed 1/27/26 Marriage of C.A. and Y.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of C.A. and Y.A. C102171

C.A., (Super. Ct. No. 22FL02794)

Respondent,

v.

Y.A.,

Appellant.

Y.A. (husband) appeals from a trial court order in this marital dissolution proceeding rejecting his request to terminate temporary spousal support. He argues the court did not apply proper legal standards and applicable law or account for the unusual circumstances of this case. He also argues the Family Code section 43201 factors do not

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

1

justify short-term support. Husband has failed to demonstrate the court abused its discretion in denying his request. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s July 11, 2024 order. I. BACKGROUND The record on appeal begins with a September 13, 2022 order in which, after a return from mediation, husband was ordered to pay C.A. (wife) $1,058 per month in spousal support. The court’s order reflects that the parties had agreed to this amount. In February 2024, husband filed a request for an order terminating the support order. Husband argued wife’s income had significantly increased “including investment income,” half the duration of the marriage was over and wife was self-supporting (see § 4320, subd. (l)), he has a medical hardship, and the marital standard of living was met without spousal support because he never worked during the marriage. Wife’s written response to husband’s request is not in the record on appeal. According to the trial court’s order, “Wife argues that support should continue. She claims to be out on disability leave as a result of the stress and trauma of the divorce. She claims that [husband] is earning nearly three times her earnings. With regard to the inheritance, she claims that the funds are in various retirement savings accounts or CD’s and that she does not get significant funds through those accounts. She claims that she currently does not have enough income to cover her expenses. Finally, she argues that husband’s medical condition is unknown and does not prevent him from working or caring for a four-year-old, so it would be inappropriate to reduce support on that basis.” After a hearing on the issue, the court rejected husband’s request in a July 11, 2024 order: “The Court declines to terminate short-term support at this time. The court has considered the Family Code section 4320 factors generally, and believes that it is still appropriate for short-term support to continue at this time. Husband has been paying support for approximately twenty-one months, which is not yet half the length of the marriage. While [husband] argues that the time from separation through now [is] over