Appellate court rules trial court retains authority to award long-term spousal support as specified in the marital settlement agreement
A recent ruling from the second district appellate court reversed the decision of the Santa Barbara Court and ordered the lower court to allow wife, a convicted child molester (and registered sex offender) to sue for spousal support.
The case involved Genise and Mike Schu, who had separated in 2010 following Genise’s conviction on 7 counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 and 3 counts of oral copulation with a minor under 18.
The trial court ordered the husband to pay his incarcerated wife $500 per month in temporary spousal support starting in April of 2011, to end only upon death, remarriage, or final order. In September, the husband amended his separation petition to request dissolution.
In July of 2012, the parties met to discuss their settlement. They agreed to sell the family home and divide their assets with the wife receiving around $914,000. They also agreed to table the question of long-term spousal support until the wife was released from prison.
Pursuant to that agreement, the wife requested long-term support following her release from prison in April 2013. However, the case was delayed because the husband was out of the country and papers could not be served. Upon his return the husband argued that he should not have to pay the support because:
- The court’s jurisdiction ended the moment the wife was released from prison due to the wording of the original settlement
- The court should not award child support to a child molester
- Evaluations showed the wife could support herself and earn $39,000 to $55,000 per year within three years, and any limitations on her earnings were brought about by her own misconduct
The lower court basically ignored the sticky questions raised by the husband and concluded that its jurisdiction had indeed expired.
The appeals court decision was well reasoned and came to the correct conclusion. The parties clearly agreed to fight about spousal support when she got out of jail. There was no requirement that the issue be addressed immediately, but only within a reasonable period of time. The mistake of the lower court judge is arguably one of common sense. Rather than tackle the difficult question of whether a child molester should be allowed spousal support, it let husband off on a technicality. To make matters worse, it appears from the appellate court perspective that the technicality was nothing but sleazy lawyer tactics by husband’s attorney and sloppy work by wife’s attorney.
Moral of the story… we need more careful ethical lawyers and judges with moral common sense.
