How Does Divorce Affect Health Insurance?

legal document about health insurance after divorce

During a divorce or legal separation, there are many considerations to keep in mind, like child custody, property division, and alimony/spousal support – but what about your health insurance?

Many couples forget to take into account the ramifications of divorce on their health insurance. Learning how your health insurance is affected by California divorce laws will help you be better prepared, both while going through the process of divorce or legal separation and for steps you may need to take after your divorce or legal separation is finalized.

Can One Spouse Terminate The Other’s Health Insurance During Divorce Or Separation Proceedings?

In many marriages, one spouse is covered by a health insurance policy that the other spouse receives through his or her job. This coverage extends to both the spouse and children, and during a divorce, the spouse who relies on that health insurance risks gaps in their coverage.

However, when a California divorce case is filed, immediate Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders (ATROs) are issued. ATROs are provided for under Family Code section 2040(a)(3) and they affect both parties’ health insurance policies in their ability to cancel coverage and change the beneficiaries of that insurance policy. That means one spouse may not remove the other from the policy or alter coverage, especially if the policy is employment-related coverage. These restraining orders protect the spouse and any dependents from gaps in coverage until final judgment in the case is granted.

If I’m On My Spouse’s Health Insurance, What Happens To My Coverage After The Divorce Or Separation Is Final?

The ex-spouse is no longer considered a “family member” under California family law, which means you will lose dependent status under your spouse or partner’s health insurance and will no longer be eligible for coverage under that plan. This means you may suffer a gap in coverage. It’s possible, under Family Code §2051, to continue your existing health insurance after divorce if negotiated and agreed upon during divorce proceedings. Azemika & Azemika Law can help you navigate this process. 

Children, however, remain legal “family members” and are therefore unaffected by changes in health insurance coverage unless the spouse with the insurance policy loses all parental rights.

What Protections Or Options Are Available Once I’m No Longer A Dependent On My Spouse’s Health Insurance?

In some cases, the insured spouse may be ordered to make a payment to the uninsured spouse specifically for health insurance coverage. This is more common if the uninsured ex-spouse is the custodial parent of a minor(s).

For a limited period of time (usually 18 months), the uninsured spouse may retain health insurance coverage through COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. COBRA requires health insurance plans to offer continuation coverage under specific circumstances that would otherwise result in termination or reduction of plan benefits. This can give you enough time to secure your own health insurance plan without suffering a coverage gap. Your spouse’s employer is not required to subsidize your insurance, but they can charge you 102 percent of the cost. This is obviously quite expensive, so it’s a good idea to shop around marketplaces like Covered California for equivalent individual coverage through another plan.

If you do choose COBRA coverage, you can stay on that plan for up to three years if your former spouse or partner continues to work at the company and certain other conditions are met.

Some state and federal laws offer additional protection of health insurance benefits. Azemika & Azemika Law can help you find the best option to protect yourself and your loved ones.

What Are My Responsibilities If I Have To Remove My Spouse From My Health Insurance Policy?

If your insurance policy will no longer provide your ex-spouse’s health insurance after divorce or separation, you are responsible for notifying the plan administrator within 60 days after the date of entry of judgment of your divorce or legal separation.

How Does Legal Separation In California Affect Health Insurance?

Some couples choose legal separation instead of dissolution of marriage in order to avoid one spouse losing health insurance coverage. However, most health insurance plans treat legal separation in California the same as dissolution of marriage, meaning that one partner is no longer considered the dependent of the other for the purposes of health insurance coverage.

If your partner has a government health insurance plan, you may be able to remain a dependent, but this must be confirmed with the plan. If you do find yourself facing a coverage gap, COBRA, as discussed above, is an option for continuing health insurance coverage after separation is finalized.

Azemika & Azemika Law Is Here To Help You

Azemika & Azemika Law specializes solely in California family law services. Over the past 22 years, our partners have successfully handled the most difficult and high asset family law cases in Kern County. Our Bakersfield divorce lawyers can help you navigate California divorce laws to protect your financial stability and your loved ones. Don’t let stress and uncertainty over your future health insurance coverage add to the already difficult emotional toll of this phase. Let Azemika & Azemika help you find customized solutions to every aspect of your divorce case, including how health insurance coverage is handled, and set you on a path to a better future. Contact us today online or by calling (661) 322-8166

Divorce and Division of Property

court gavel for Division of Property in California

When a couple decides to divorce or legally separate, there are many critical issues they must address. One such issue is the division of property and marital assets.

Determining who gets what is often one of the most stressful parts of a divorce. Because the division of marital property can be such a tense issue, understanding California divorce laws can help you be prepared and ensure your rights are protected.

Distinguishing Marital Property and Separate Property

To determine the division of property in a divorce, there are two types of property that must be established; marital property and separate property.

California is known as a “community property” state, meaning that all property, assets, and debts acquired during the marriage are considered marital property, and are subject to an equal division between spouses or domestic partners if they divorce or legally separate.

Separate property refers to any property one spouse owned before the marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage. It belongs to the individual spouse and is not typically divided in a divorce.

Separate property also usually includes items purchased with or exchanged for separate property, earnings on separate property, and any increase in the value of separate property, as long as the owner can verify the claim with financial records.

California law also states that property spouses acquire before a divorce is finalized, but any property acquired after the date of separation is considered separate property.

To clarify, the date of separation is not necessarily the date one spouse moves out of the marital home. Rather, it is the date that one spouse decides to end the marriage and it requires some act of physical separation combined with other actions clearly showing that the spouse has decided to end the marriage.

The date of separation can be a big issue in cases where one spouse earns or spends a significant amount of money right before the divorce. If a couple is unable to agree on a date, a court will decide after considering all the evidence.

Changing Separate Property Into Marital Property

Marital property and separate property can change from one to the other through a process known as transmutation. There are several ways this can happen.

First, a couple can agree, before or during marriage, to change an asset that was originally separate property into marital property, or vice versa.  A simple change of the title for the property is not enough. These agreements must be in writing and must clearly state the intention of the parties.

It is also possible for a spouse to unintentionally convert a separate asset into a marital asset by “commingling” separate property and marital property together. For example, a premarital bank account belonging to one spouse can become marital property if the other spouse makes deposits into it or a house owned by one spouse alone can become marital property if both spouses pay mortgage or other expenses.

There are many types of assets that can be partially marital and partially separate including retirement accounts one spouse contributed to before and during the marriage, or a business one spouse started before marriage and continued running after marriage.

Distinguishing marital property from separate property can be rather complicated, especially in situations where there is a lot of commingling involved or one spouse owns a business. Couples who cannot decide what belongs to whom will have to let a court determine whether the commingled property should be considered marital or separate.

Determining Property Value

During the division of property in a divorce, the spouses will usually assign a monetary value to each item of property. If the spouses are unable to agree on an item the court will determine its value.

Naturally, some items are more challenging to value than others. You may need professional assistance to determine the value of antiques, artwork, or retirement accounts.

Division of Property in California

California divorce laws require that the net value of the marital assets be split equally between both spouses.

Spouses can divide assets by assigning specific items to each spouse, allowing one spouse to “buy out” the other’s share of an asset, or by selling assets and dividing the proceeds.

Divorcing couples can also agree to hold property together even after the divorce. This is most common with spouses who want to keep a family home until their children are out of school.

The spouses must also assign all debts accrued during the marriage including car loans, mortgages, and credit card debts to one of the spouses. You should be aware that a divorce or separation agreement is not binding to creditors. This means they may continue to collect any jointly owned debt from either spouse even after the marriage is over.

If the court assigns a debt to one spouse, the other can request the court to put a lien on that spouse’s separate property as security for the payment of the debt.

Contact Azemika & Azemika Law

If you are going through a divorce and are unsure how your assets will be divided, Azemika & Azemika is here to help.

For comprehensive legal counsel on your options during your divorce or legal separation, contact Azemika & Azemika, Kern County Divorce Attorneys. We will provide the guidance and representation you need to ensure your rights are protected.

What‌ ‌is‌ ‌the‌ ‌Difference‌ ‌Between‌ ‌Dissolution‌ ‌of‌ ‌ Marriage‌ ‌and‌ ‌Legal‌ ‌Separation?

attorney presenting the process of dissolution‌ ‌of‌ marriage in court

In California, there are multiple ways couples can alter or end their marriage. Spouses who wish to terminate their marriage permanently can file for dissolution‌ ‌of‌ ‌ marriage‌, commonly known as divorce. If they have the proper grounds, they can annul their marriage by filing for annulment of their marriage. Couples who are looking to separate without legally ending their marriage can file for legal separation.

If you are considering ending your marriage, you’ll want to understand the different options available to you. Every marriage is different and the best choice for you will depend on your given circumstances.


In California, divorce is defined as the legal termination of a marriage. In a divorce, spouses seek to dissolve their union and end all legal and financial ties. To be eligible to file for divorce in California, you must have been a California resident for at least six months as well as a resident of the county in which you want to file the petition for three months.

Both spouses don’t need to agree to the divorce. If one spouse initiates a divorce and the other doesn’t take part in the process, a default judgment will likely be placed on the resistant spouse. In other words, it takes two people to say “I do,” but only one to say that “I no longer do”. One spouse cannot stop the other spouse from getting a divorce if they want to get a divorce. Because of California’s absence of a fault law, the spouse filing for divorce doesn’t need to prove any fault of the other party.

When filing for divorce, couples will try to reach reasonable compromises on important issues such as division of property, child custody and visitation, and child and spousal support. If the spouses are unable to come to an agreement, the case will go to court where a judge will decide the outcome of these issues.

Dissolution‌ ‌of‌ Marriage (Summary Dissolution)

In the state of California, a dissolution of marriage is a simpler divorce process. If couples are eligible for a summary dissolution, they can save time by avoiding court proceedings and filing less paperwork. To be eligible for a summary dissolution, couples must meet all the following requirements:

  • Have been married for five years or less
  • Neither spouse owns a home or other real estate
  • The couple did not have any children during the marriage and the wife is not pregnant
  • Community debt is less than $6,000 (excluding auto loans)
  • The couple’s combined property doesn’t exceed $43,000
  • There is a written division of assets and debt
  • Both spouses agree to waive alimony

A dissolution of marriage is a good option for couples who want to end their marriage in its early years before building financial and personal entanglements.

Legal Separation

Legal separation allows couples to physically separate but it does not end the marriage and does not permit spouses to marry others. This allows couples to live in separate residences and neither party is required to communicate with the other for decisions on finances and assets.

While many legal separations ultimately lead to divorce, many couples prefer to legally separate first when they are unsure if a divorce is really what they want. It can serve as a trial run for a divorce in many instances. If the couple is able to work out their differences, it will be much easier for them to return to normal compared to if they had filed for divorce. 

A legal separation is also a viable choice for couples who cannot get divorced due to religious reasons. Another reason why people do legal separation is because of health insurance coverage. If one party is uninsurable, then legal separation allows the other party to continue to carry them on their employer-provided health insurance plan whereas if the parties are divorced, they are no longer each other’s dependents and thus, cannot carry each other on their health insurance plan.

There are no residency requirements to enter into a legal separation in California whereas divorce requires you to be a resident for six months before you file. Because of this, many couples who are ineligible for a divorce will opt for legal separation until they meet the residency requirement to get a divorce.


Annulments are quite different from legal separations, summary dissolutions, and divorces. Whereas the other methods of ending or altering a marriage recognize the legal validity and clear start and end date to a marriage, an annulment treats the marriage as if it never happened.

You can obtain an annulment when there are grounds that the marriage was never legally valid. For example, a bigamous marriage is never valid in California and can be nullified. Other legal grounds for receiving an annulment include situations when:

  • The marriage was the result of force or fraud
  • One spouse was underage
  • One party was of “unsound mind” to consent to the union
  • One spouse had a previous marriage or domestic partnership that was still legally valid.

If you can prove any of these conditions, you can obtain an annulment in California at any time. Unlike divorce or legal separation, you cannot get an annulment for “irreconcilable differences”. Be aware that since the marriage is considered to never have been valid, you may not have rights to any assets of your former spouse if you receive an annulment. If there are children from the marriage, you may still be eligible to have child support and custody terms included in the annulment so long as you can prove parentage.

Contact Azemika & Azemika

The experienced divorce attorneys at Azemika & Azemika Law understand that every case is unique and can help you protect your interests in a divorce or legal separation. For comprehensive legal counsel on your options during your divorce or legal separation, contact Azemika & Azemika Law, Kern County Divorce Attorneys. We will craft fast and effective solutions for your unique circumstances and needs. We will fight for and protect you and your family during the separation and divorce process.

Trial Court in Bakersfield Was Ruled Wrong by Appellate Court

trial court room used for hearings and trials about kern county family law attorneys

In reversing a Trial Court in Bakersfield, Kern County, California, an Appellate Court has ruled that Trial Court was wrong by allowing depreciation deductions taken on equipment and other assets used in the self-employed Father’s businesses, as listed on his income tax returns, to reduce the amount of his income available for child support and by assuming that the income and expenses reported on Father’s tax returns were correct and thus, placing the burden on Mother to show that Father’s tax returns were incorrect. In the case of In re Marriage of Hein, Mother earned $9,086 per month as a physical therapist working three days a week during the marriage. Father was self-employed as a farm owner and manager and was the sole shareholder and president of two corporations. The assets of the corporations included four ranches totaling 110 acres and Father managed more than 6,000 acres of trees and vines. Father also owned other companies and real estate. He reported wages and salaries of $7,760 per month on his income tax returns.

Mother filed for divorce in May 2003, and their divorce judgment was filed in November 2004. Itincluded provisions for joint custody of their two daughters and did not order either parent to paychild support.

On February 28, 2014, Mother filed a request for modification of child custody and child support and for attorney’s fees and costs. After several days of trial, Trial Court issued a statement of decision that, among other things, determined that it was appropriate to reduce from Father’s gross income depreciation deductions taken by the two corporations on equipment and other assets used in the businesses, that Father’s federal tax returns were presumed correct, and that Mother had the burden of showing that the returns were incorrect. Trial Court also rejected Mother’s request for attorney’s fees, finding that an award would not be appropriate because there was no disparity in the parties’ incomes.

Claiming that Trial Court erred by allowing depreciation deductions to reduce Father’s income available for child support and placing the burden on her to rebut the presumption of correctness of Father’s tax returns, Mother appealed, and in a partially published opinion, California Court ofAppeals has now reversed Trial Court’s decision and has sent the case back to Trial Court for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

The Court of Appeals has ruled that (1) there is no reason to depart from treatment of depreciation deductions in Asfaw (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1407, [deduction for depreciation of rental property

is not appropriate] and Rodriguez (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 625 [deduction for depreciation of motor vehicles is not expenditure required for operation of business and not deducted from income available for child support] in determining whether depreciation for equipment and other assets used in self-employed parent’s businesses should be deducted from income available to Father for child support purposes; (2) Trial Court erred in reducing Father’s available income for child support purposes by allowing depreciation deductions taken on his income tax returns; (3) Trial Court also erred by placing burden of proof on Mother to show that Father’s tax returns were incorrect (Father has greater knowledge of the facts regarding his businesses and expenses and has control over his business financial records); and (4) on these facts, the presumption that Father’s tax returns were correct does not apply. Therefore, the Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded the case back to Trial Court for further proceedings in line with this opinion.

In the unpublished parts of the opinion, the Court of Appeals has vacates Trial Court’s denial of attorney’s fees for Mother and declines to decide Mother’s other issues.


hourglass, gavel, weighing scale and lady justice for statue of lady justice for California Proposition 8 and family law lawyers bakersfield ca

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a Trial Court was wrong, in a Domestic Violence Protection Act (“DVPA”) case, by refusing to grant a continuance to a Plaintiff who needed one to permit him to serve the opposing party and to give him time to recover from an unforeseen back surgery. In the case of J.M. v. W.T., Plaintiff, on January 8, 2019, filed a request for a DVPA protective order against Defendant. In a supporting declaration, Plaintiff asserted that between December 23, 2017, and March 17, 2018, Defendant committed several acts of domestic violence against Plaintiff (throwing a book at him, calling him offensive names over the phone, punching him with closed fist, biting him during sex, threatening to hurt his dog after the dog preferred Plaintiff to Defendant, and demanding entry to Plaintiff’s condo and then becoming physically out of control). Trial Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order pending the hearing and scheduled a hearing for January 29, 2019.

On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a written request for a continuance on California Judicial Council Form DV-115, explaining that he had been unable to serve Defendant with the necessary papers and that he was scheduled for spinal surgery on January 28, 2019, after which he would be unable to care for himself, stand or sit for a long period, or think clearly because of the medications. Neither party appeared at the January 29, 2019 hearing, and Trial Court denied the request for a continuance and dismissed the case, commenting that the incidents complained of happened almost a year ago.

Plaintiff appealed Trial Court’s decisions, and now a California Court of Appeals has reversed Trial Court’s decisions and remanded the case back to Trial Court with instructions. The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) under California Family Code Section 245(b), Trial Court must grant a continuance if a party shows good cause for one in writing or orally on the record; (2) the failure to serve the opposing party is grounds for a continuance; (3) here Plaintiff demonstrated good cause for a continuance on these facts; and (4) Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to grant a continuance. Therefore, the Appellate Court reversed Trial Court’s order denying a request for DVPA protective order and remanded the case back to Trial Court with directions to grant a continuance within 30 days of the case coming back to Trial Court.


statue of lady justice for California Proposition 8 and family law attorney bakersfield ca

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that Watts charges [a party having sole use of both parties’ community property asset, i.e., home, after separation can be charged for that party’s sole use, i.e., reasonable rental value of the home] may be ordered against Husband where Husband lived in his separate property house after the parties’ date of separation and Moore/Marsden formula gave the community a beneficial interest in the house because payments during the marriage were made with community property funds. In the case of In re Marriage of Mohler, Husband bought a house for $168,000, taking title in his sole name in February of 1995, prior to the parties’ marriage. Husband and Wife were married in September of 1998. They lived in the House until they separated on July 2, 2011. The payments on the House were made with community property funds [the parties’ earnings during the marriage] until that date. The principle reduction on the mortgage loan on the House was reduced during the parties’ marriage to the tune of $56,557. After they separated, Husband lived in the House and paid the house payments with his separate property funds [his earnings after the parties’ date of separation].

At trial in 2017, Trial Court valued the House at $530,000. The parties agreed that the Moore/Marsden formula [when community pays for one party’s separate property House during the marriage, the community gets reimbursed based on principle reduction of the loan on the House and appreciation in value of the house during the marriage] should be used to calculate the community property interest in the House acquired by making the mortgage payments. Using that formula, Trial Court calculated that the community property interest amounted to 33.66%, or $172,684 (appreciation value plus mortgage principle reduction). However, Wife argued that the community property interest must be increased to 64.9% to include the six (6) years that Husband lived in the House after the parties’ separation. In essence, Wife was arguing that she had to wait for six (6) years to receive her community property share in the House while Husband was solely enjoying the House and thus, her community property interest should be increased.

Trial Court agreed and re-calculated the community property interest under the Moore/Marsden formula at $332,944, which included Husband’s separate property payments of $52,482 [payments he made on the mortgage after the date of separation]. Husband appealed and now the California Court of Appeals has vacated Trial Court’s order and has remanded the case back to Trail Court with directions as to how to resolve the case.

The Appellate Court has ruled that (1) by making payments on Husband’s separate property House with community property funds [parties’ earnings during the marriage], the community acquired a beneficial interest in House the amount of which is calculated by the application of the Moore/Marsden formula;(2) the community ceases to acquire a beneficial interest in a spouse’s separate property when community property payments stop or date of separation occurs; (3) Trial Court erred by applying the Moore/Marsden formula beyond the date of separation after which Husband made house payments with his separate property [his earnings after the date of separation]; and (4) if any compensation is due to the community by reason of Husband’s living in the House after the parties’ separation, it must be calculated as Watts charges. According to the Appellate Court, “where, as here, the community does not own the property outright but instead maintains a beneficial partial interest in the property due to a Moore/Marsden calculation,” Watts charges may be applied. Therefore, the Appellate Court has remanded the case back to Trial Court for further proceedings in line with this opinion.


statue of lady justice symbol for law on Registration of Marriage Certificate

A California Court of Appeals has ruled that a Trial Court was not wrong when it denied Wife a spousal support award under California Family Code Section 4325’s rebuttable presumption against spousal support award to a spouse who is convicted of domestic violence. In the case of In re Marriage of Brewster and Clevenger, Husband, an orthopedic surgeon, and Wife, a gynecologist and obstetrician, separated in August of 2011, after 21 years of marriage. Wife filed for divorce.

In March of 2015, Husband filed a request for a temporary spousal support. In his supporting declaration, Husband stated that he had been depositing $10,000 per month into a joint account to cover Wife’s expenses and had been paying the mortgage and property taxes on the parties’ family home, where Wife was living rent free. Husband also asserted that he should not be ordered to pay any spousal support to Wife because she had been charged with “several criminal counts” for harassing him. Wife filed no response to Husband’s request.

After Trial Court set a trial date for October of 2016, Husband filed a trial brief in which he asked Trial Court to take judicial notice of the file in Wife’s criminal stalking case. Husband acknowledged that Trial Court had reserved jurisdiction on his temporary spousal support request, but reiterated his assertion that he should not have to pay spousal support to Wife under Family Code Section 4325 [rebuttable presumption against spousal support award to spouse convicted of domestic violence] and Section 4320 (i) and (n) [spousal support factors regarding domestic violence and any other equitable factors] since Wife had been convicted of domestic violence in January of 2016. He also claimed that Wife was underemployed and could be self-supporting.

Trial Court held four days of trial between October of 2016, and January 2017. At the outset, Trial Court took judicial notice of the minute orders and sentencing hearing in Wife’s criminal case. The parties stipulated on the record that the duck club membership would be assigned to Husband at a value of $65,000. Wife testified that she had been convicted of some criminal counts but did not specify them. However, in her written closing argument, she confessed to having put a non-poisonous python and several rats into the home where Husband was staying.

In rebuttal of the Family Code Section 4325 presumption, Wife testified to three incidents in which Husband had committed domestic violence against her. In the first, Wife claimed that Husband intentionally dislocated her finger when she refused to let go of his shirt during a confrontation; in the second, she alleged that Husband screamed at her, picked her up out of his chair, and threw her across the hallway after she confronted him at his office during business hours about an affair; and in the third, she stated that she had gone to Husband’s office on a Saturday, gained entry with a key she had previously purloined, and surprised him at his desk. In the ensuing conflict, Wife stated that Husband had injured her hip by throwing her down on the thinly-carpeted concrete floor, but had dissuaded her from calling police and begged for forgiveness. In his testimony, Husband claimed that Wife was the aggressor in each incident, that he had merely tried to subdue her, and that he had not noticed the bruises that she had claimed to have received.

Wife also testified to having several medical conditions relating to her shoulders, hands, and feet, as well as to suffering cardiac arrythmias requiring hospitalization after the last incident with Husband. Wife said that most of her conditions had since resolved, but she was unable to perform many of the procedures required in her practice and had begun to offer medical weight reduction treatment to supplement her practice.

After the parties submitted written closing arguments, Trial Court issued a tentative decision and subsequent divorce judgment in which it awarded the duck club membership to Husband at a value of $60,000, determined that the $10,000 payments Husband made were in lieu of spousal support and were taxable to Wife and deductible to Husband, ruled that Family Code Section 4325 applied (Wife had not rebutted the presumption), and set spousal support at zero.

Wife appealed, but after modifying the value of the duck club membership, the California Court of Appeals has affirmed Trial Court’s decisions. The appellate court has ruled that (1) it must deny Wife’s request for judicial notice of documents not presented at trial and not considered by Trial Court in making its judgment; (2) Trial Court was not wrong in applying Family Code Section 4325 presumption or in concluding that Wife failed to rebut the presumption on these facts (Wife filed to introduce documented evidence that she was the victim of domestic violence and statute does not require conviction be for a violent act); (3) Trial Court was also not wrong in declining to order spousal support; (4) Trial Court was also not wrong in finding that Husband’s payments into joint account were in lieu of spousal support (Trial Court did not lack jurisdiction to make temporary support order or retroactive order; Wife was estopped from arguing that payments were not in lieu of spousal support when she took the opposite position at trial); (5) Wife waived her argument regarding taxability of payments by failing to raise that issue at trial; and (6) Trial Court was wrong by valuing duck club membership at $60,000 after parties’ stipulated that its value was $65,000. Therefore, the Court of Appeals modifies the judgment to reflect correct value of the membership and affirms the remainder of the judgment.