Alimony in California.
Whether the state sets a formula or leaves it to the judge, what the court has to weigh, how long it runs, and what brings it to an end.
See a different stateCalifornia
There is no statewide spousal support formula in California — not in the Family Code and not in the California Rules of Court. What exists is county law, and it governs temporary support only. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Local Family Rules, Rule 3.C, verbatim: 'Temporary spousal or partner support is generally computed by taking 40% of the net income of the payor, minus 50% of the net income of the payee, adjusted for tax consequences. If there is child support, temporary spousal or partner support is calculated on net income not allocated to child support and/or child-related expenses.' (https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/rules/family.pdf) Alameda County adopts a different guideline, which is the proof that this is county law rather than state law. Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Local Rules, Rule 5.70, verbatim: 'The following discretionary guideline is adopted for temporary spousal support or partner support in marital and domestic partnership dissolution cases. (a) Non-child support cases. In cases where there is no child support, the guideline spousal or partner support is 40% of the net income of the payor or minus 50% of the net income of the payee. (b) Child support cases. In cases where there is to be child support, the guideline spousal or partner support uses the components set forth in Family Code sections 4055 through 4069 in the following formula: SS = [HN-(HN) (M) (K) (1+H %)] [.35] – [LN-(LN) (M) (K) (1+H %)] [.4]' (https://www.alameda.courts.ca.gov/system/files/local-rules/05-title-5-20250701.pdf) Both URLs were re-checked on 2026-08-23 and both resolve.
It is county law. A different county can and does use a different formula, and none of it governs the award made at the end of the case.
Use the state’s own words
California calls it 'Spousal support'. Part 3 of Division 9 of the Family Code is captioned 'SPOUSAL SUPPORT' and Chapter 3 of that Part 'Spousal Support Upon Dissolution or Legal Separation'. The parallel term for registered domestic partners is 'partner support', which is the phrase the county local rules use alongside 'spousal support'. The Family Code sections we read do not use the word 'alimony'.. Using the state’s own term matters when you are searching for forms or reading an order — the words are not interchangeable across state lines, and some of them mean different things in different places.
The short version4 points · tap one to jump to it
- What the law actually says
- How long it lasts — California has no duration bracket and no percentage-of-marriage cap.
- Does behavior matter? — California is a no-fault state and s. 4320 contains no general conduct or fault factor.
- When it ends, and when it can change — Cohabitation does not terminate; it shifts a burden.
In this subject 4
What the law actually says
The short version4 points · tap one to jump to it
- What the law actually says
- How long it lasts — California has no duration bracket and no percentage-of-marriage cap.
- Does behavior matter? — California is a no-fault state and s. 4320 contains no general conduct or fault factor.
- When it ends, and when it can change — Cohabitation does not terminate; it shifts a burden.
In this subject 4
The power the court has
What the judge has to weigh
How long it lasts
Duration
California has no duration bracket and no percentage-of-marriage cap. It has three things. First, a stated goal inside the factor list, s. 4320(l), quoted in full above: self-support 'within a reasonable period of time', which 'generally shall be one-half the length of the marriage' except for a marriage of long duration, followed immediately by a sentence disclaiming any limit on the court's discretion. Second, s. 4335, verbatim and in full: 'An order for spousal support terminates at the end of the period provided in the order and shall not be extended unless the court retains jurisdiction in the order or under Section 4336.' Third, s. 4336, verbatim: '(a) Except on written agreement of the parties to the contrary or a court order terminating spousal support, the court retains jurisdiction indefinitely in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties where the marriage is of long duration. (b) For the purpose of retaining jurisdiction, there is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that a marriage of 10 years or more, from the date of marriage to the date of separation, is a marriage of long duration. However, the court may consider periods of separation during the marriage in determining whether the marriage is in fact of long duration. Nothing in this subdivision precludes a court from determining that a marriage of less than 10 years is a marriage of long duration. (c) Nothing in this section limits the court's discretion to terminate spousal support in later proceedings on a showing of changed circumstances. (d) This section applies to the following: (1) A proceeding filed on or after January 1, 1988. (2) A proceeding pending on January 1, 1988, in which the court has not entered a permanent spousal support order or in which the court order is subject to modification.' Divergence flag: the ten-year rule is about how long the court keeps the power to act, not about how long money is paid, and s. 4336(c) says in terms that the court may still terminate. A page that says a ten-year California marriage means support for life is describing something the statute does not say. Sources: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4320 , https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4335 and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4336
Does behavior matter?
Marital misconduct
California is a no-fault state and s. 4320 contains no general conduct or fault factor. Conduct reaches spousal support only through four named channels, all of them tied to violence or a conviction. (1) Section 4320(i), quoted in full in the factors field: 'All documented evidence of any history of domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211, between the parties or perpetrated by either party against either party's child', with five enumerated kinds of evidence. (2) Section 4320(m): 'The criminal conviction of an abusive spouse shall be considered in making a reduction or elimination of a spousal support award in accordance with Section 4324.5 or 4325.' (3) Section 4324, verbatim: 'In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, when a spouse is convicted of attempting to murder the other spouse, as punishable pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 664 of the Penal Code, or of soliciting the murder of the other spouse, as punishable pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 653f of the Penal Code, the injured spouse shall be entitled to a prohibition of any temporary or permanent award for spousal support or medical, life, or other insurance benefits or payments from the injured spouse to the other spouse.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4324) (4) Sections 4324.5 and 4325, which turn felony and misdemeanor domestic violence convictions into, respectively, a flat bar and a rebuttable presumption. Section 4324.5(a), verbatim: 'In any proceeding for dissolution of marriage where there is a criminal conviction for a violent sexual felony or a domestic violence felony perpetrated by one spouse against the other spouse and the petition for dissolution is filed before five years following the conviction and any time served in custody, on probation, or on parole, the following shall apply: (1) An award of spousal support to the convicted spouse from the injured spouse is prohibited.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4324.5) Section 4325(a), verbatim: 'In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage where there is a criminal conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor or a criminal conviction for a misdemeanor that results in a term of probation pursuant to Section 1203.097 of the Penal Code perpetrated by one spouse against the other spouse entered by the court within five years prior to the filing of the dissolution proceeding or during the course of the dissolution proceeding, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the following shall apply: (1) An award of spousal support to the convicted spouse from the injured spouse is prohibited.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4325) Both s. 4324.5 and s. 4325 allow the convicted spouse's own history as a victim to be weighed against the bar or the presumption. Nothing in the Family Code makes adultery, desertion or cruelty relevant to spousal support.
When it ends, and when it can change
What brings it to an end
Cal. Fam. Code s. 4337, verbatim and in full: 'Except as otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, the obligation of a party under an order for the support of the other party terminates upon the death of either party or the remarriage of the other party.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4337) Section 4335 ends support at the end of the term stated in the order unless jurisdiction was retained, quoted in the duration field. Cohabitation does not terminate; it shifts a burden. Section 4323(a), verbatim: '(1) Except as otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, there is a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, of decreased need for spousal support if the supported party is cohabiting with a nonmarital partner. Upon a determination that circumstances have changed, the court may modify or terminate the spousal support as provided for in Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3650) of Part 1. (2) Holding oneself out to be the spouse of the person with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute cohabitation as the term is used in this subdivision.' The same section closes off the reverse argument, s. 4323(b), verbatim and in full: 'The income of a supporting spouse's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying spousal support.' And s. 4323(c), verbatim and in full: 'Nothing in this section precludes later modification or termination of spousal support on proof of change of circumstances.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4323) Section 4322 requires denial or discontinuance in one defined case, verbatim and in full: 'In an original or modification proceeding, where there are no children, and a party has or acquires a separate estate, including income from employment, sufficient for the party's proper support, no support shall be ordered or continued against the other party.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=4322) There is no statutory retirement trigger.
Changing it later
Cal. Fam. Code s. 3651(a), verbatim: 'Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d) and subject to Article 3 (commencing with Section 3680) and Sections 3552, 3587, and 4004, a support order may be modified or terminated at any time as the court determines to be necessary.' Section 3651(c)(1), verbatim: 'Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subdivision (b), a support order may not be modified or terminated as to an amount that accrued before the date of the filing of the notice of motion or order to show cause to modify or terminate.' Section 3651(d), verbatim: 'An order for spousal support may not be modified or terminated to the extent that a written agreement or, if there is no written agreement, an oral agreement entered into in open court between the parties, specifically provides that the spousal support is not subject to modification or termination.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=3651) The same rule for support agreements is at s. 3591: '(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), the provisions of an agreement for the support of either party are subject to subsequent modification or termination by court order. (b) An agreement may not be modified or terminated as to an amount that accrued before the date of the filing of the notice of motion or order to show cause to modify or terminate. (c) An agreement for spousal support may not be modified or revoked to the extent that a written agreement, or, if there is no written agreement, an oral agreement entered into in open court between the parties, specifically provides that the spousal support is not subject to modification or termination.' (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=3591) Divergence flag: the familiar California requirement of a 'material change of circumstances' before spousal support can be modified is not in s. 3651. The statutory text is 'at any time as the court determines to be necessary'. The changed-circumstances requirement is judicial gloss; the only place the Family Code itself uses that language for spousal support is s. 4323(a)(1) (cohabitation) and s. 4336(c) (termination after a long marriage). No California opinion is quoted here because none was read from a primary source.
Worth knowing about California
Three things worth saying plainly. First, the number everyone quotes — 40 percent of the payor's net minus 50 percent of the payee's net — is a county local rule, it is for temporary support during the case, and it stops at the courthouse door on the day of judgment: s. 4320 governs the judgment and contains no arithmetic at all. Second, the ten-year rule at s. 4336 is a rule about retained jurisdiction, not about permanent support, and s. 4336(c) preserves the power to terminate. Third, California is the rare state where a criminal conviction can bar spousal support outright rather than merely reduce it (s. 4324 for attempted or solicited murder of the spouse; s. 4324.5 for a violent sexual felony or a domestic violence felony), and s. 4322 requires the court to refuse or discontinue support where a childless party has a separate estate sufficient for proper support — a mandatory denial with no discretion in it.
The tax rule changed, and most guides still describe the old one
For a divorce or separation instrument executed after 31 December 2018, alimony is not deductible by the person paying it and not taxable to the person receiving it. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the provisions that made it otherwise. For an instrument executed on or before that date the old treatment continues — deductible to the payer, taxable to the recipient — unless it is later modified and the modification expressly adopts the new rule.
This is not a detail. Under the old rule a higher-rate payer could transfer income to a lower-rate recipient and the two of them shared the saving. That saving no longer exists, which changes what a given number is worth to each side. New Hampshire wrote the point into its own statute: its 23 per cent figure assumes non-deductibility, and reverts to 30 per cent if the federal treatment is ever restored.
But that is only the federal rule, and California is one of four states where it is not the end of the story. California did not adopt the federal change for instruments executed 1 January 2019 through 31 December 2025: the payer deducts and the recipient includes on the California return, via a Schedule CA adjustment. The Franchise Tax Board says so directly — “We do not conform to the federal Alimony changes effective January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2025.” That has now ended. Under SB 711, California conforms for any instrument executed on or after 1 January 2026, and for an earlier instrument modified after that date where the modification expressly says the amendments apply. Two orders signed either side of that date have different California treatment for their whole life.
Why it matters: alimony that is invisible on the federal return still moves money on the state one. A settlement modeled on federal treatment alone is mispriced in California. See how the four decoupled states differ.
Source: Cal. Franchise Tax Board, ‘Alimony’ (personal income types); Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 17024.5(a)(1) (IRC conformity date table, specified date currently Jan. 1, 2025 for tax years beginning on/after Jan. 1, 2025); SB 711 (2025-2026 session) the state source
The other number that decides your budget
How California calculates child support, and the overnight count that moves it more than income does.
And the question underneath it
What California presumes about custody, and what the judge has to weigh.
The rest of what we have written about California. Every figure is quoted from California’s own statute or its courts’ own published schedule, and carries the date we last checked it.
The formula is county law, not state law
Santa Clara and Alameda adopt different guidelines, both for temporary support only, and neither governs the final award. Why there is no California alimony formula — plus the ten-year rule as s. 4336 actually writes it, and the SB 711 tax change that took effect on 1 January 2026.