Family court overstepped in limiting spousal support changes, panel rules

The California Court of Appeal has overturned key portions of a family court judgment, finding the lower court unlawfully restricted a party's ability to seek spousal support modification and improperly ordered reimbursement of student loan payments.

In a Sept. 5 opinion, a three-justice panel of the 4th District, Division Three, affirmed parts of the Orange County Superior Court's ruling but sent significant issues back for recalculation.

The case involved attorney Christian Chapman, who had challenged orders requiring him to pay $3,461 per month in child support, $2,000 per month in spousal support, and nearly $25,000 in community reimbursement for law school loan payments. In re: Marriage of Chapman and Villagomez (Sept. 5, 2025, G064188) [nonpub. opn.] (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3)

"The family court had no authority to so limit Christian's ability to seek a modification of spousal support," the opinion stated, striking down the five-year prohibition on modification until Chapman's ex-wife, Yolanda Rivera Villagomez, obtained a bachelor's degree.

The panel further faulted the lower court for attempting to dictate Villagomez's educational path.

"To the extent the family court purported to dictate precisely what kind of training, education, or degree Yolanda would have to complete before the court would consider her self-supporting, that too was an abuse of discretion."

On the financial side, the court rejected reimbursement of Chapman's student loans, holding the presumption under Family Code section 2641 was rebutted. "The record before us demonstrates clearly the community did substantially benefit from his education," the justices wrote, citing the couple's home purchase, cars, and lifestyle supported by Chapman's legal career.

The opinion also identified error in the parenting timeshare calculation--set at 18.67 percent--requiring recalculation of both child and spousal support. "We therefore reverse the family court's parenting timeshare calculation and remand ... to reevaluate its child and spousal support orders and, should it deem necessary, adjust them based on a corrected timeshare calculation."

Other findings, including the refusal to impute income to Villagomez, were affirmed. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions, with each side bearing its own costs.

Geoffrey D. Michel of Michel & Rhyne represent the petitioner and appellant, while Lisa R. McCall and Erica M. Barbero from the Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall represent the respondent. The attorneys were not available for comment.