Boatman v. Clarkson CA2/6

Filed 6/26/14 Boatman v. Clarkson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SUZAN E. BOATMAN, 2d Civil No. B248676 (Super. Ct. No. FL100736A) Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

PHILIP R. CLARKSON,

Appellant.

Philip Clarkson appeals from the judgment denying his request for $8,500 a month permanent spousal support after he took an early retirement. He lived off his wife's earnings for four years before terminating his 32+ year marriage with her. The trial found that Clarkson, an attorney with 30 years litigation experience, had the job skills to supplement his income and that it would be unjust to require Boatman to go back to work and/or use her separate property for Clarkson's support. (Fam. Code, § 4320, 1 subd (n).) Because it was a long-term marriage, the trial court retained jurisdiction if a change of circumstances warranted future support. (§ 4336, subd. (a).) We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Family Code.

Facts and Procedural History Clarkson (age 61) and Boatman (age 61) are licensed attorneys and have two adult children. After Clarkson and Boatman passed the California Bar exam in 1978, they moved to San Luis Obispo and established Clarkson & Boatman, a Professional Law Corporation. Boatman practiced family law. Clarkson worked as a conflict public defender, did criminal appeals and administrative law hearings, and became a civil litigator specializing in lemon law consumer cases. During the marriage, they built a single family residence, purchased a San Luis Obispo rental and two triplexes in Porterville, and bought a 48 percent interest in a commercial building in Ware, Massachusetts. Using her separate property, Boatman purchased the remaining interest in the building. During the marriage, Boatman received partnership income from the Boatman Family Partnership and purchased an office building in San Luis Obispo with her mother (now deceased). In 2007 and 2008, Clarkson (age 55) decided to retire early and withdraw from the active practice of law. Boatman was shocked to learn that Clarkson was no longer taking cases. Rather than work in the office, Clarkson gardened, golfed, skied two months out of the year, hiked, jet skied, and took extended trips. Every summer, he vacationed at his family's cabin at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Boatman realized they were drifting apart and decided to retire in January 2010. After they separated, Boatman filed a petition for marital dissolution on October 15, 2010. Most of the property issues were settled in mediation. Clarkson sought $8,500 a month permanent spousal support. At trial, the evidence showed that Clarkson and Boatman enjoyed an upper-middle class standard of living that required $150,000 to $225,000 a year gross income. Throughout the marriage, they lived off the law firm income and the rental income from the commercial property in Ware, Massachusetts. As a married couple, they put their children through college and accumulated $700,000 in tax deferred retirement and investment accounts. Boatman insisted that they live within their means, not borrow excessive sums of money, and not invade her separate property to fund their lifestyle.