When a spouse is ordered to pay support after a divorce, the calculation is often straightforward if the payor has a predictable salary. However, when income is variable, such as commissions, bonuses, or severance packages, courts must determine a fair method for calculating support. In California, case law provides clear guidance on how additional or non-traditional income should be handled; however, the outcome depends on the structure of the payment and the legal arguments presented in support of it.
Cases like In Re Marriage of Ostler & Smith and In Re Marriage of Tong & Samson illustrate how courts draw distinctions between income earned through work and income provided as a cushion during unemployment. Understanding these distinctions is critical for both payors and recipients of support.
California courts typically begin with the base income, which refers to the guaranteed wages or salary that a spouse consistently earns on a regular basis. This is the foundation for guideline child support calculations and spousal support awards.
However, many professionals receive more than just a paycheck. Commissions, sales bonuses, and performance-based incentives can vary dramatically from month to month. To account for this, courts often issue Ostler & Smith orders.
These orders require the paying spouse to contribute a percentage of additional or variable income beyond the base salary. For example, if a spouse earns $10,000 per month in base salary but also receives quarterly commissions, an Ostler & Smith order might require a percentage of those commissions to be paid as extra support. This ensures fairness and reflects the true financial picture of the supporting spouse.
This principle originates from In Re Marriage of Ostler & Smith (1990) 223 Cal.App. 3d 33 and was reaffirmed in In Re Marriage of Mosley (2008) 165 Cal.App. 4th 1375. Both cases emphasized that support should reflect both consistent income and additional earnings that impact a family’s financial resources.
Severance packages differ from commissions or bonuses because they are typically not earned based on performance or productivity. Instead, they are offered when employment ends, often to soften the financial impact of job loss.
The key question is whether severance should be treated as “income” under a support order. If so, a recipient spouse may argue they are entitled to a percentage of it, just as they would be for bonuses or commissions. If not, severance is viewed more like a temporary cushion that should not dramatically alter support obligations.
In In Re Marriage of Tong & Samson (2011) Cal.App. 4th No. B224899, the court faced this exact issue. Richard and Elaine divorced, and their judgment required Richard to pay:
After his layoff, Richard received a severance package worth about $310,000. He argued that the severance should be treated as income spread across multiple months, while Elaine claimed she was entitled to 35% of the entire severance immediately as a lump sum.
The appellate court sided with Richard, holding that the Ostler & Smith order did not apply to severance pay. Severance was not compensation for services performed but rather a financial bridge intended to cover 12 months of lost salary and 6 months of lost commissions. The court reasoned that treating severance as monthly income would distort the purpose of the support order.
This ruling clarified that severance is distinct from variable income, such as bonuses or commissions, and therefore is not automatically subject to percentage-based support calculations.
California courts distinguish between different types of payments to avoid unfair results:
By separating severance from variable income, courts prevent one spouse from receiving a windfall while the other spouse faces involuntary unemployment. This approach reflects the policy goals of fairness and balance under California family law.
Statutory law also plays a role in these decisions:
This statutory framework enables courts to tailor their rulings to the unique circumstances of each case.
Severance payments may influence spousal support, but not in the same way as monthly bonuses. Courts are more likely to treat severance as part of the payor’s overall ability to pay under Family Code §4320, rather than applying a fixed percentage.
For instance, if a severance package is structured in installments, it may resemble wages, and courts could treat it differently from a one-time lump sum. The context of the payment is crucial.
Child support is calculated using a mandatory guideline formula. Whether severance counts as income under that formula depends largely on structure:
In practice, this means child support can be more directly impacted by severance than spousal support, especially if payments are spread over time.
If you lose your job and are under a support order, time is critical. Support obligations do not automatically adjust when your income changes.
Not under an Ostler & Smith order. However, courts may still consider severance under Family Code §4320 when evaluating the ability to pay.
It depends on how the severance is structured. Lump sums are less likely to count than installment payments, which resemble wages.
Yes. Job loss qualifies as a material change in circumstances, but you must file a formal request with the court.
You remain responsible for support until the order is modified or updated. Courts cannot retroactively adjust obligations prior to your filing date.
Since severance is taxed as wages, it reduces your net disposable income, which is the figure courts use for support calculations.
Support obligations during job loss and severance negotiations require careful handling. California law distinguishes between bonuses, commissions, and severance packages, but each case depends on the facts.
The attorneys at Reape Rickett have extensive experience navigating complex income issues in divorce, including severance packages, bonuses, stock options, and commissions. We help clients protect their rights, avoid arrears, and pursue modifications when circumstances change.
Contact Reape Rickett today to schedule a consultation and gain clarity on your obligations and options.