Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialmotion
appealtrialmotion

Related Cases

DCH Health Services Corp. v. Waite, 95 Cal.App.4th 829, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 847, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 869, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1063
View Case »
Wright v. Pennamped, 657 N.E.2d 1223
View Case »
Wilson v. Mintzes, 761 F.2d 275
View Case »
General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297
View Case »
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398, 80 USLW 4244, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3299, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3726, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Marriage of Olson, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 480

Facts

Robert and Mary Jane Olson were married for 30 years before obtaining a judgment of dissolution in 1984. Initially, Robert was ordered to pay $1,500 per month in spousal support, which was later modified to a lesser amount. In 1991, Robert filed a motion to reduce spousal support to $500 per month, citing a decrease in his ability to pay due to reduced wages. The trial court found that Robert's income had decreased significantly and appointed a Special Master to determine the income available for support, leading to the order for Robert to pay 27% of his gross income each month.

Robert and Mary Jane Olson were married for 30 years before obtaining a judgment of dissolution in 1984. Initially, Robert was ordered to pay $1,500 per month in spousal support, which was later modified to a lesser amount. In 1991, Robert filed a motion to reduce spousal support to $500 per month, citing a decrease in his ability to pay due to reduced wages.

Issue

Did the trial court improperly delegate its judicial authority to a Special Master in determining the income of the parties for the purpose of setting spousal support?

Did the trial court improperly delegate its judicial authority to a Special Master in determining the income of the parties for the purpose of setting spousal support?

Rule

The court held that delegation of judicial authority to a Special Master to make factual findings and exercise judgment in determining the income of the parties for spousal support is an abuse of discretion unless agreed upon by the parties.

The court held that delegation of judicial authority to a Special Master to make factual findings and exercise judgment in determining the income of the parties for spousal support is an abuse of discretion unless agreed upon by the parties.

Analysis

The court analyzed the trial court's decision to appoint a Special Master and found that while the appointment itself was not an abuse of discretion due to the animosity between the parties, the authority given to the Special Master to make binding factual findings was improper. The court emphasized that the trial court must retain the ultimate decision-making authority regarding spousal support and cannot delegate that power to a subordinate.

The court analyzed the trial court's decision to appoint a Special Master and found that while the appointment itself was not an abuse of discretion due to the animosity between the parties, the authority given to the Special Master to make binding factual findings was improper.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the trial court must make its own determinations regarding spousal support without improperly delegating authority.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the trial court must make its own determinations regarding spousal support without improperly delegating authority.

Who won?

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mary Jane Olson, reversing the trial court's decision due to the improper delegation of authority to the Special Master.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mary Jane Olson, reversing the trial court's decision due to the improper delegation of authority to the Special Master.

You must be