Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jodi and Laith Murad married on June 12, 1998, and their dissolution became effective May 6, 2019. Their marital settlement agreement (MSA) covered child support, custody, and spousal support. It required Husband to pay Wife $4,311 per month beginning November 1, 2018, continuing until Husband's death, Wife's remarriage, or further court order, "for a minimum of 14 years," with the parties' intent that Husband pay at least $4,311 monthly "subject to upward modification only." Wife had been a full-time homemaker throughout the marriage and was the caregiver for their young daughter at dissolution.
On April 17, 2025, Husband filed a request for order (RFO) seeking termination of spousal support. He alleged that Wife had become a self-sufficient real estate agent earning over $176,000 in 2022 and had completed her master's degree, and he claimed his own eight-month unemployment made continued payments a hardship. He argued the MSA's "further court order" language preserved the trial court's jurisdiction to terminate support before the 14-year minimum ran. Wife opposed, contending the MSA was specific and unambiguous: modification was upward only and support was guaranteed for a minimum of 14 years.
At an August 14, 2025 hearing, the trial court denied the RFO, finding that the "upward modification only" language precluded Husband from reducing or terminating his support obligation, and that in a long-term marriage the court could not terminate its jurisdiction over spousal support absent an express and unequivocal waiver by Wife, which did not exist. Husband appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It first held the briefing adequate on the termination issue but ruled that Husband forfeited his due process claim by failing to provide reasoned argument and proper record citations for his assertion that the trial court interrupted him. On the merits, the court reviewed the MSA's interpretation de novo. In marriages of long duration, a court retains spousal support jurisdiction indefinitely, but a written agreement may specifically provide that support is not subject to modification or termination. The MSA's upward-modification-only language combined with the 14-year minimum precluded termination; the court explained that seeking "termination" was in essence a downward modification to zero, directly conflicting with the MSA.
The court agreed that reading the 14-year minimum to require payment even after Husband's death or Wife's remarriage created an ambiguity, and it resolved that ambiguity in favor of the right to spousal support, reading the minimum as applying only while Husband was alive and Wife unmarried. It distinguished In re Marriage of Vomacka, holding that "further court order" language does not preserve jurisdiction to terminate support where the agreement limits modification to upward only, and it found the income-reporting clause was not surplusage because it could support an upward modification. The court also noted, for any future disputes, an MSA provision requiring mediation before filing an RFO that neither party raised below or on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A marital settlement agreement providing upward modification only and a minimum 14-year support term precludes termination of spousal support before that minimum expires, even if the supported spouse has become self-sufficient.
- In long-term marriages courts retain spousal support jurisdiction indefinitely, but parties may limit modification or termination through specific written agreement language.
- The phrase "further court order" does not preserve jurisdiction to terminate support when the same agreement limits modification to upward only and guarantees a minimum duration.
- Ambiguities in spousal support provisions are resolved in favor of the right to support, and agreements are read to give effect to all provisions without rendering any surplusage.
- Self-represented appellants are held to the same briefing standards as attorneys; claims unsupported by reasoned argument and record citations are forfeited on appeal.
Why It Matters
The opinion confirms that parties can contractually cabin a court's spousal support jurisdiction even in long-term marriages, and that plain MSA language—upward modification only plus a minimum duration—is enforced according to its terms, barring a supporting spouse from obtaining termination based on changed circumstances such as the supported spouse's self-sufficiency or the payor's financial hardship.
The decision also underscores appellate procedure: pro per litigants must supply reasoned argument and exact record citations, and courts will forfeit unsupported claims while still reaching issues that were adequately briefed.