William J. Wells - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

          determines various rights of the parties.  Sampson v.                       
          Commissioner, 81 T.C. 614, 618 (1983), affd. without published              
          opinion 829 F.2d 39 (6th Cir. 1987).                                        
               California Family Code section 4337 (West 1994) provides               
          that, “Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the            
          obligation of a party under an order for the support of the other           
          party terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage           
          of the other party.”  (Emphasis added.)  Under California law, an           
          order for “spousal support” means an order for the support of the           
          spouse based upon the standard of living established during                 
          marriage.  On the other hand, “child support”, once ordered by a            
          court, survives the death of the payee custodial parent and                 
          continues as an obligation of the payor noncustodial parent.  In            
          re Marriage of McCann, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639 (Ct. App. 1994); In             
          re Marriage of Gregory, 281 Cal. Rptr. 188 (Ct. App. 1991).  The            
          third category, “family support”, is an unallocated combination             
          of “child support” and “spousal support”.  Cal. Fam. Code secs.             
          92, 4330 (West 1994).                                                       
               Petitioner argues that because family support is an                    
          unallocated combination of child support and spousal support, he            
          must prevail since spousal support terminates at the death of the           
          payee.  We believe the converse argument is equally persuasive              
          (i.e., that the payments are not alimony because child support              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011