California spousal-support termination rules were modified by Senate Bill 343, enacted in 2024 and operational through 2025. The 2026 practice picture is now clearer than it was during the transition. Counsel should know where the modified triggers actually run and how trial courts have started to apply them.
What SB 343 Changed
Three core modifications:
- Cohabitation rebuttable presumption. Family Code § 4323 already contained a rebuttable presumption of decreased need for support upon proof of cohabitation with a nonmarital partner. SB 343 sharpened the documentary threshold for invoking the presumption — shared residence for a specified continuous period, joint financial accounts, or a recognized domestic partnership filing.
- Supported-party earning capacity. The 2024 amendments to Family Code § 4320 strengthened the trial court’s obligation to make findings on the supported party’s actual or imputed earning capacity at the time of any modification request.
- Modified-termination procedures. The procedural pathway for moving from open-ended support to a fixed termination date was clarified, particularly in long-duration marriages where the original judgment did not specify a termination date.
How Trial Courts Apply the Triggers
Through 2025 and into 2026, California family courts have approached the modified triggers conservatively. Practical observations:
- The cohabitation presumption now requires a clean documentary record. Anecdotal allegations of overnight stays no longer suffice to shift the burden.
- Earning-capacity findings are routinely made even when not specifically requested by either party. Counsel should not assume the issue will be set aside if not affirmatively raised.
- Modified-termination orders — converting open-ended support to a fixed termination date — are issued more readily than they were before 2024, particularly when the supported party has demonstrated movement toward self-sufficiency over the post-judgment period.
What Counsel Should Be Documenting
For supporting parties seeking to terminate or reduce: documentation of the supported party’s living arrangement, employment trajectory, earning capacity, and any financial integration with a nonmarital partner. The bare cohabitation argument does not carry the case; the supporting financial picture does.
For supported parties resisting termination: documentation of ongoing financial need, separation of any nonmarital relationship from the household finances, and the realistic path to self-sufficiency given health, age, and employment-history considerations.
2026 Takeaway
SB 343 did not revolutionize California spousal-support termination; it sharpened the existing framework and gave trial courts clearer authority to act on it. Counsel who treat the documentary record as the case — rather than treating the legal argument as the case — produce materially better outcomes for clients on both sides.