Alimony

Orange County Alimony Lawyers Helping Clients Navigate Spousal Support

Sarieh Law Offices, ALC logo on a dark background.

Orange County Alimony Lawyer Protecting Your Financial Interests in Spousal Support Cases

When a marriage ends in California, the financial realities can feel overwhelming. Alimony, known under California law as spousal support, may be awarded to help a lower-earning spouse maintain their standard of living during and after the divorce process. At Sarieh Family Law, our attorneys help clients throughout Orange County, Costa Mesa, and the surrounding communities understand their rights and obligations under California’s spousal support laws.

With over 20 years of experience in California family law, Attorney Wail Sarieh and our team are committed to protecting your financial future, whether you are seeking support or defending against an unreasonable demand.

California spousal support law is complex, with outcomes shaped by factors that include the length of the marriage, each spouse’s earning capacity, and the standard of living the couple maintained together. This page explains how California spousal support works, how courts calculate amounts and set duration, and what you can do to protect yourself.

Orange County alimony lawyers helping clients with spousal support matters
4.8 Avg. Rating on Google

What Clients are saying

I have been working with Sarieh Law Offices for the past year… I highly recommend his team and attorney Sarieh.

Georgina B

What Is Spousal Support Under California Law?

Spousal support (commonly called alimony) is a court-ordered payment from one spouse to another following separation or divorce. Its purpose is to limit the unfair economic impact of divorce, particularly when one spouse earns significantly more than the other or when one spouse sacrificed career opportunities to support the family during the marriage.

In California, spousal support can be agreed upon between the spouses in a marital settlement agreement or ordered by a judge after considering a range of factors set out in the California Family Code. There is no automatic entitlement to spousal support. Courts evaluate each case individually based on the circumstances of the marriage and the financial situation of both parties.

Under California law, both spouses have the right to be represented by an attorney in spousal support proceedings. Sarieh Family Law represents clients on both sides of alimony disputes throughout Orange County and Southern California, working to achieve fair outcomes whether you are seeking support or responding to a support claim.

Spousal support and alimony under California law, including financial considerations in divorce cases

Types of Spousal Support in California

California courts recognize two main types of spousal support: temporary support ordered while the divorce is pending and permanent (post-judgment) support ordered after the divorce is finalized. Understanding the difference between these two types is essential to planning your financial strategy.

Temporary Spousal Support

Temporary spousal support is ordered while the divorce case is still pending in court. It is designed to help the lower-earning spouse cover living expenses during the legal process. California Family Code Section 3600 governs temporary spousal support and gives courts broad discretion in setting the amount.

Most California counties, including Orange County, use computer software (such as Dissomaster or XSpouse) to calculate a guideline amount for temporary support. The calculation is based on each spouse’s gross income and certain deductions, including taxes, health insurance, and retirement contributions. While the guideline amount is not legally mandatory, courts generally follow it absent unusual circumstances.

How Long Does Alimony Last in California?

The duration of spousal support depends heavily on how long the marriage lasted and the judge’s overall assessment of both parties’ circumstances. California courts approach short-term and long-term marriages very differently.

Short-Term Marriages (Under 10 Years)

For marriages lasting fewer than 10 years, courts commonly use a guideline of approximately one-half the length of the marriage as a starting point for support duration. For example, in an eight-year marriage, support might last approximately four years as a general benchmark. However, this is a judicial practice, not a strict statutory requirement. California judges retain full discretion to order a longer or shorter duration based on the unique facts of each case, and either party can petition the court to modify the order if circumstances change significantly.

Long-Term Marriages (10 Years or More)

For marriages lasting 10 years or longer, California Family Code Section 4336 creates a presumption that the court will retain jurisdiction over spousal support indefinitely. This does not mean support continues forever, but the court preserves the authority to review, modify, or terminate the order as circumstances evolve over time. The supported spouse may receive support for a considerably longer period in these cases.

California courts consistently encourage the supported spouse to make reasonable efforts toward becoming self-supporting. In some cases, a judge will issue what is known as a Gavron warning, formally notifying the supported spouse that they are expected to work toward financial independence. Failure to make good-faith efforts toward self-support can result in a reduction or termination of support at a later hearing.

Marriage Length General Approach to Support Duration
Under 5 years Guideline of approximately one-half the marriage length; courts have full discretion
5 to under 10 years Guideline of approximately one-half the marriage length; courts have full discretion
10 years or more Indefinite court jurisdiction under Family Code Section 4336; duration set by the court
Any length with a domestic violence history Family Code Section 4325 may affect both the support amount and duration

Modifying or Terminating Spousal Support

Either spouse can ask the court to modify a spousal support order when there has been a material change of circumstances since the original order was made. California courts do not modify support simply because one party is dissatisfied with the amount. There must be a genuine and significant change that affects the financial picture of either spouse.

Common reasons for seeking a support modification include:

  • A significant change in either spouse’s income, such as a job loss, major promotion, or new business
  • A serious illness or disability affecting either party’s ability to work
  • Retirement of the paying spouse, particularly at or after traditional retirement age
  • The supported spouse is beginning to cohabit with a new partner in a romantic relationship
  • The supported spouse is completing education or acquiring new skills that increase their earning capacity
  • Remarriage of the supported spouse, which terminates support automatically under Family Code Section 4337

To request a modification, you must file a motion with the Orange County Superior Court and present evidence of the changed circumstances. Our firm guides clients through this process and builds compelling cases for both increases and reductions in spousal support.

California spousal support termination rules for remarriage, death, cohabitation, and changed circumstances
Spousal support modification based on significant changes in income, employment, health, retirement, or other circumstances

When Does Spousal Support End in California?

Spousal support does not continue indefinitely in most cases. Under California law, support terminates automatically in certain situations and may be reduced or ended by court order in others.

Spousal support terminates automatically when:

  • Either spouse dies
  • The supported spouse remarries (Family Code Section 4337)

Spousal support may be reduced or terminated by the court when:

  • The end date specified in the divorce judgment or marital settlement agreement arrives
  • The supported spouse cohabits with a new romantic partner (see below)
  • The supported spouse fails to make reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency after a Gavron warning
  • There is a material change of circumstances that warrants a modification

Cohabitation and Spousal Support
(Family Code Section 4323)

Under California Family Code Section 4323, there is a rebuttable presumption that spousal support should be reduced or terminated when the supported spouse lives with a new partner in a romantic relationship. The law presumes that cohabitation decreases the supported spouse’s need for financial assistance from the paying spouse.

However, this presumption can be challenged with evidence showing that cohabitation does not actually reduce the supported spouse’s financial need. If you believe your former spouse is cohabiting with a new partner and your support obligation should be reduced, our attorneys can help you file the appropriate motion with the court.

California

Free In-Depth Case Evaluation

    Frequently Asked Questions

    About Alimony in Orange County

    Not necessarily. Many couples reach a spousal support agreement through negotiation or mediation without a contested hearing. If both parties agree, the agreement is submitted to the family law judge for approval and incorporated into the final divorce judgment. However, if you and your spouse cannot reach an agreement, the court will hold a hearing and decide based on the evidence both sides present.

    Contact Our Orange County Alimony Attorneys Today

    If you are facing a spousal support issue in Costa Mesa, Tustin, Irvine, or anywhere in Orange County, the family law team at Sarieh Family Law is ready to help. We will review your situation, explain your rights under California law, and develop a strategy tailored to your financial goals and circumstances.

    Call us to schedule your consultation or reach out through our website. Our team is here to help you move forward with clarity, confidence, and the legal protection you deserve.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact Sarieh Family Law for legal advice specific to your situation.

    Recent Case Results

    • Our client in this case was the mother of the only child of marriage. Our child custody law firm took the case that started in 2009 with the mother filing a Petition for custody and support of a child against the father where the parties reached a stipulation and order awarding the mother sole legal and sole physical custody. Later on the mother filed a divorce case and since the father failed to respond, the mother entered his default in 2010. The divorce case was consolidated with the paternity case.

      In early 2012, the mother and without notifying the father moved to another State. The father filed a police report and hired a very aggressive Orange County Family Law attorney who filed an emergency motion with the court (ex parte application) and obtained custody for the father and appointed a child custody investigator.

      The mother was arrested on a DUI despite the fact that her car was parked and she was not driving; the police justified the DUI charge as they found an open container in the car.

      The child custody investigation report, based on the mother’s DUI conviction and the fact that she moved away without notifying the father, came to the conclusion that the mother should only have supervised visitation with the child and that father should have sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child.

      The matter was further complicated by the mother agreeing to “bifurcate” the trial on the custody and visitation issues and the trial was set for the second half of 2013.

      The mother decided to retain Sarieh Family Law to help her litigate the child custody during the bifurcated trial.

      Mr. Sarieh, an Orange County Certified Family Law Specialist challenged the entire proceedings from 2010 to 2013. Mr. Sarieh argued that every document filed including but not limited to the child investigation report and every court order rendered after the entry of default in 2010 is null and void.

      Our firm was very proud of the results and very proud of our judicial officers. The judge agreed with Mr. Sarieh that the court has no jurisdiction since the default was entered in 2010. The trial by default was set in month and our client obtained a dissolution judgment awarding her sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child.

    • Our client in this case was the father of two children; the parties were not married but cohabited together for over a decade. Throughout their cohabitation both parties worked hard to support their children; the parties lived in an upper-middle class life style during their cohabitation. Shortly after their separation, the mother claimed disability due to Reactive Airway Disease (RAD) she quit her job as mortgage broker, collected State Disability checks and filed Worker’s Compensation claim alleging her disability resulted from the poor air quality at her office.

      Mr. Sarieh, an Orange County Certified Family Law Attorney, filed with the court a request to vocationally evaluate the mother. Unfortunately the vocational evaluation report concluded that the mother is employable but her employability depended on her health condition, which was beyond the vocational evaluator expertise.

      In a trial that spanned over the period of months, Mr. Sarieh was able to successfully cross-examine Petitioner’s primary care physician who came to testify on her behalf. The physician admitted that his patient; the mother is able to work under certain conditions.

      Mr. Sarieh subpoenaed all medical reports from the Worker’s Compensation case and was able to establish the mother’s ability to work. The Court agreed with Mr. Sarieh and stated that the mother has the obligation to support the children; the court imputed income to the mother and the child support was calculated according to the mother’s imputed income even though she was still not working at the time of trial.

    • Our client in this case was the husband, who with the wife’s agreement entered into a stipulated judgment awarding the family residence to the wife; neither party was represented and they entered the judgment with the assistance of a paralegal in Orange County. The parties were married for long time and have adult children from their marriage.

      The untold story was despite the written judgment; the parties had verbally agreed that once the house is sold the wife will give the husband his fair share of the proceeds.

      Of course, wife sold the house and refused to pay husband any monies. The husband sought the assistance of Sarieh Family Law; Orange County Divorce attorneys.

      We began our investigation by examining the judgment, which stated unequivocally that wife gets the house. We were also faced with the legal hurdle that it is almost impossible to set aside a judgment in California if the judgment only dealt with property division and without fraud, duress or undue influence.

      We noticed on the Resister of Action on the Court’s website that the initial submission of judgment was rejected by the court and that the judgment was returned. The judgment was re-submitted again and the court accepted it. We asked our client whether he knew anything about the rejection of the judgment and he indicated that he knew nothing about this rejection.

      We asked for a copy of the entire file from the court itself and we did not rely only on what our client gave us. We set the wife’s deposition at our office.

      We received the ordered copy of the court’s file on the morning of the wife’s scheduled deposition at our office. After a careful examination of the court’s file with our client, we found out the signature on our client’s Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure was not his.

      We confronted the wife during her deposition about the falsified document but she denied any involvement and blamed the paralegal. She acknowledged that the document was not signed by our client.

      We subpoenaed the paralegal to the court’s hearing to prove the wife’s fraud and we retained a handwriting expert to prove that our client’s signature was falsified by the wife herself and no one else.

      Right before we entered the court room to try our case, the wife’s attorney approached us with a settlement offer giving our client what he was promised. Our client accepted the offer for the sake of the parties’ adult children.