Archives September 2026

When a parent loses a job, receives a raise, or starts earning substantial bonuses, it is natural to assume that child support and spousal support will move in the same direction. Both orders involve income, so the same financial change seems like it should produce roughly the same result.

California does not treat the two forms of support that way. Child support is calculated through a statewide guideline formula, while long-term spousal support is determined through a broader analysis of statutory factors.

That difference can produce surprising results. A major income change may lead to a relatively direct child support recalculation while producing a smaller adjustment, or no adjustment at all, to long-term spousal support.

Child Support Recalculates Through the Guideline

California uses a statewide formula to calculate child support, and the guideline amount is generally presumed correct. The calculation considers both parents’ financial circumstances along with the amount of parenting responsibility each parent has.

Because income is built directly into the formula, a significant change in earnings can affect the result. A reduction in the paying parent’s income may lower support, while higher earnings may increase it, although the final number also depends on the other parent’s income and the rest of the guideline inputs.

Income is defined broadly for child support purposes. Wages and salaries are only the beginning; commissions, bonuses, rental income, investment income, business income, and other sources may also need to be considered.

Variable compensation and self-employment can make the calculation harder. Courts may need to account for bonuses or commissions as they are actually received, while business cases can involve disputes over which expenses legitimately reduce the income available for support.

A voluntary reduction in earnings does not necessarily produce a lower obligation. In appropriate circumstances, a court may consider earning capacity rather than simply accepting the income a parent has chosen to earn.

New-spouse income is generally excluded except in narrowly defined extraordinary circumstances. Parenting time remains another important input, so a change in the actual parenting arrangement can affect the result alongside a change in earnings.

Spousal Support Depends on More Than the New Paycheck

Long-term spousal support does not operate through the same statewide formula. Temporary support during a pending divorce may be estimated using guideline approaches, but post-judgment support is determined by weighing the factors set out in California Family Code section 4320.

Those factors include earning capacity, the marital standard of living, the supported spouse’s needs, the supporting spouse’s ability to pay, the length of the marriage, and the parties’ age and health. The goal of becoming self-supporting within a reasonable period can also be part of the analysis.

Income is therefore important without being the only question. A substantial raise for the paying spouse does not automatically mean long-term support rises by a matching amount.

The marital standard of living remains an important reference point. If the supported spouse’s needs are already being met at that level, additional post-separation income may not translate directly into a larger award.

A genuine income reduction can support a request to lower support when it materially changes the paying spouse’s ability to pay. Courts may also examine whether the reduction resulted from circumstances outside the person’s control or from a voluntary choice to earn less.

The supported spouse’s income matters too. A new job, promotion, or significant increase in earnings can affect need and the broader question of progress toward self-support.

Remarriage and cohabitation have their own rules. Unless the parties agreed otherwise in writing, remarriage of the supported spouse generally terminates support, while cohabitation creates a rebuttable presumption that the supported spouse’s need has decreased.

That broader analysis makes spousal support modifications less predictable than a guideline child support recalculation. It is one reason searches for alimony attorneys near me often begin after an income change, when the financial event is clear but its legal effect is not.

One Income Change Can Require Two Separate Analyses

A single change in earnings can justify reviewing both support orders, but each one has to be evaluated under its own rules. A parent who loses a job may need a new child support calculation while also asking whether the same loss materially changes the section 4320 analysis for spousal support.

The child support inquiry begins with updated financial and parenting inputs. The spousal support inquiry is broader, asking how the income change affects ability to pay, need, earning capacity, and the other circumstances surrounding the existing order.

The same distinction applies when income rises. Higher earnings may alter the child support guideline relatively directly, while the effect on long-term spousal support depends on the marital standard of living and the rest of the statutory factors.

Kaspar & Lugay LLP represents San Diego clients seeking or opposing modifications involving child support, spousal support, or both. The firm can evaluate how a changed financial situation affects each order separately and identify the evidence needed to support or challenge a requested modification.

Timing Matters When Income Changes

Neither child support nor spousal support normally adjusts itself when a paycheck changes. Until the existing order is modified, the amount already ordered remains important, even if the person paying support is now earning substantially less.

California generally limits how far back a support modification can be made effective, with the filing of the modification request playing a central role and specific statutory exceptions applying in some situations. There are also special rules addressing certain unemployment-based modification requests.

That makes delay risky. Someone who experiences a major income reduction can continue accumulating obligations under the existing order while waiting to see whether the situation improves.

The same timing issue can matter when the other party’s income has increased significantly. Waiting to seek review can limit the period for which a later modification may be effective.

Income changes are common after divorce, but child support and spousal support do not respond to them in the same way. Kaspar & Lugay LLP helps San Diego clients evaluate those differences and determine whether changed financial circumstances justify revisiting an existing support order.

Kaspar & Lugay, LLP

+18585043252

12526 High Bluff Dr UNIT 300, San Diego, CA 92130

Most injury claims follow a familiar path. A person hires an attorney, the claim is investigated, and if the dispute cannot be resolved, a lawsuit is filed.

Florida medical malpractice works differently. Before a patient can file a malpractice complaint, state law requires a presuit investigation, medical expert corroboration, formal notice to each prospective defendant, and a waiting period while the provider and insurer evaluate the claim.

That means a substantial part of the legal work happens before anything appears on a court docket. The early stage is not simply administrative paperwork, because mistakes in the investigation or notice process can create serious problems for the claim later.

The purpose of Florida’s presuit system is to screen and evaluate medical negligence claims before full litigation begins. For the patient, the practical consequence is that the case has to be built early.

The First Step Is Establishing Reasonable Grounds for the Claim

A bad medical result does not automatically mean malpractice occurred. Florida requires a claimant to conduct a reasonable investigation and establish grounds to believe that a health care provider was negligent and that the negligence caused injury.

That process starts with the medical records. Counsel has to reconstruct what treatment occurred, which providers were involved, what decisions were made, and whether the care fell below the professional standard that applied in that situation.

The patient’s account remains important, but it cannot carry the entire presuit burden. Florida requires a verified written opinion from a qualified medical expert corroborating the reasonable grounds for the claim.

Choosing that expert is a legal issue as well as a medical one. The expert has to satisfy Florida’s qualification rules for the type of provider being accused, and when the defendant is a specialist, the reviewing expert generally must practice in the same specialty and meet the statute’s recent professional-activity requirements.

This is where some potential cases end. The records may show a poor outcome without showing negligent care, or they may show a departure from the standard of care without a strong causal connection to the injury.

That screening function is part of the point. Before a provider is formally sued, the claim has to survive a serious medical and legal review.

Notice Starts the 90-Day Presuit Screening Period

Once the investigation supports the claim, the next step is serving each prospective defendant with a notice of intent to initiate medical negligence litigation. The notice has to comply with Florida’s statutory requirements and must be delivered through one of the verifiable methods permitted by law.

The claimant also provides the required authorization involving relevant medical information. That allows the provider and insurer to review the records and investigate the allegations during the presuit period.

After notice is served, Florida generally imposes a 90-day screening period before the lawsuit can be filed. During that time, the provider and insurer conduct their own investigation and both sides may participate in the informal discovery procedures available under the statute.

Those exchanges can include medical records, written questions, unsworn statements, and other information relevant to evaluating the claim. The idea is to give both sides enough information to assess the case before formal litigation begins.

At or before the end of the screening period, the prospective defendant generally responds by rejecting the claim, making a settlement offer, or offering arbitration with liability admitted and damages left for determination through the statutory process. Those options are not interchangeable, and an arbitration proposal can carry consequences that should be understood before the claimant decides how to respond.

If the claim is rejected or remains unresolved, the case may then move into formal litigation. By that point, however, both sides have already spent months investigating the dispute.

Presuit Has to Be Completed While the Filing Clock Is Running

Florida medical malpractice claims are subject to strict deadlines. In general, a claim must be brought within two years from when the incident was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, subject to a four-year statute of repose and specific exceptions.

The presuit requirements do not pause that clock automatically from the moment a patient suspects something went wrong. Records still have to be collected, the medical issues evaluated, the correct prospective defendants identified, and a qualified expert located before notice can be served.

Florida law does provide timing protections once the presuit process begins. Proper service of the notice of intent tolls the limitations period during the 90-day screening period.

The law also allows a claimant to petition the clerk of the appropriate court for an automatic 90-day extension of the limitations period so the required investigation can be completed. That extension is valuable, but it does not revive a claim whose filing period has already expired.

This is why waiting can become dangerous even when the patient technically still appears to have time. A complicated medical record can take weeks to obtain and review, and finding the right expert can take additional time.

Starting early gives counsel room to investigate carefully instead of making critical decisions under deadline pressure. In a malpractice case, the practical deadline arrives before the courthouse deadline because the presuit work has to be completed first.

The Case Is Already Being Built Before the Complaint Is Filed

Presuit is where many of the most important decisions in a Florida medical malpractice case are made. Counsel identifies the medical theory, determines which providers may be responsible, works with qualified experts, and begins organizing the evidence that may eventually have to be presented in court.

The defense is building its position at the same time. The records exchanged, the expert analysis, and the provider’s presuit response can influence whether the matter moves toward settlement, arbitration, or litigation.

That is why experience with Florida’s presuit requirements matters from the first conversation. Grossman Yaffa Cohen Law represents patients and families in medical malpractice matters in Miami and throughout South Florida, including cases that require early investigation, expert review, and careful compliance with Florida’s procedural rules.

The firm can obtain and analyze medical records, identify the appropriate expert issues, serve the required notices, and respond to the provider’s position when the 90-day period ends. That work forms the foundation for whatever happens next.

A patient who believes a medical error caused serious harm should not assume the only deadline that matters is the date a lawsuit must be filed. Florida requires substantial work before filing is even possible, so the strongest time to begin evaluating the claim is well before the limitations period starts dictating the strategy.

Grossman Yaffa Cohen Law

+13054428666

2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd #1150, Coral Gables, FL 33134