CALG partners Robert Roth and Michael von Loewenfeldt won affirmance from California’s First District Court of Appeal of a post judgment order rejecting a former spouse’s claim for millions of dollars — the specific amount is sealed — in spousal support and property division. The dispute involved whether stock warrants received after separation were separate property under a waiver of future investment opportunities clause in the parties’ marital settlement agreement, whether income from consulting-related equity compensation triggered bonus spousal support as “employment services,” and whether the trial court’s calculation of additional child support on reinvested assets was a retroactive modification of the prior support order.
The Court of Appeal agreed with CALG’s position rejecting each challenge to the order, affirming that the warrant was a post-separation investment opportunity, that consulting work was properly classified as independent contracting rather than employment, and that additional child support was correctly calculated. The opinion also presents a stark reminder of the consequences of failing to preserve arguments at trial and on appeal, as the Court found several of appellant’s arguments waived or forfeited for raising a theory not presented in the trial court, for failing to make a timely evidentiary objection, for not addressing an alternative ground for the trial court’s ruling, and for failing to develop an argument with specificity.
You can see the opinion in Brinton v. Brinton by clicking here.