The California Court of Appeal has affirmed a lower court's decision denying Laith Murad's request to terminate spousal support payments to his ex-wife, Jodi Murad. This ruling, filed on November 5, 2026, clarifies the interpretation of spousal support agreements and the conditions under which they can be modified or terminated.

The case, identified by docket number E086973, stems from the couple's long-term marriage, which lasted from 1998 until their divorce in 2018. The court's decision is significant for individuals navigating similar spousal support issues, as it reinforces the importance of clear language in marital settlement agreements.

Background

Laith and Jodi Murad were married for over 20 years and had three children together. Their marriage ended in divorce in 2018, and they entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that outlined various financial obligations, including spousal support. According to the MSA, Laith was to pay Jodi $4,311 per month for a minimum of 14 years, with the only possibility for modification being an upward adjustment.

In April 2025, Laith filed a request for order (RFO) to terminate spousal support, arguing that Jodi had become self-sufficient due to her successful real estate career and that he was facing financial difficulties after being unemployed. Laith claimed that Jodi had verbally agreed to reduce the spousal support payments based on her move to Texas, where the cost of living was lower. However, Jodi denied this claim and argued that the MSA clearly stated that spousal support could only be increased, not decreased.

The Ruling

The trial court ruled against Laith's request, stating that the language in the MSA precluded any reduction or termination of spousal support. The court emphasized that the MSA specified spousal support would continue until Laith's death, Jodi's remarriage, or a further court order, which the court interpreted as meaning the support could only be modified upward.

The court ruled, “the relevant language in the parties’ MSA which reads ‘subject to upward modification only’ precludes [Husband] from either reducing or terminating his Spousal Support obligation.”

Laith appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court had misinterpreted the MSA by eliminating its jurisdiction to terminate spousal support. However, the appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that the MSA's language was clear and unambiguous in its intent.

Impact

This ruling reinforces the principle that spousal support agreements must be clearly defined and that courts will uphold the terms of these agreements as long as they are unambiguous. The decision is particularly important for individuals who may be seeking to modify or terminate spousal support obligations, as it highlights the necessity of having explicit language in any marital settlement agreement.

Going forward, this case serves as a precedent for similar disputes, emphasizing that courts will interpret marital settlement agreements based on their explicit language and the intent of the parties involved. It also underscores the importance of financial disclosures and the obligations of both parties to communicate significant changes in their financial situations.

What's Next

Laith Murad has the option to appeal the decision further, but it is unclear whether he will pursue this route. The appellate court's ruling is final unless challenged in a higher court. No related cases are pending at this time.