High Court Alters Rules on Alimony : Law: State justices say a divorced man cannot be forced to work ‘substantial overtime’ to support his former wife.

The state Supreme Court held Thursday that a divorced husband cannot be forced to work “continuous, substantial overtime” to pay spousal and child support to his former wife.

The justices, setting new support guidelines for divorcing spouses, ruled unanimously that such payments must be based on an “objectively reasonable work regimen.” While support orders based on overtime are not flatly barred, the regular 40-hour week should ordinarily be the standard, the justices held.

“An award of support following dissolution of marriage generally should not penalize . . . a supporting spouse who voluntarily has undertaken an extraordinary rigorous work regimen during the marriage, by locking that spouse into an excessively onerous work schedule,” Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the court.

The court ordered a Los Angeles trial judge to recalculate the support obligations imposed on Richard O. Simpson, a theater and television stagehand who had worked up to 70 hours a week to help pay the expenses of his wife, Barbara J. Simpson, so she could obtain a teaching credential.

When the couple divorced in 1989, the husband went back to a 40-hour week, earning about $26,000 annually compared to the $60,000 or more he made annually for three years working overtime.

Simpson said he was suffering from stress working nights and weekends and wanted to spend more time with the couple’s 10-year-old daughter. But Superior Court Judge H. George Taylor ruled that Simpson had deliberately reduced his pay to avoid family obligations.

Taylor said Simpson should make support payments based on his earning capacity--not his current actual earnings. The judge fixed Simpson’s capacity at $60,000 a year and ordered him to begin paying $1,650 a month in support, to be reduced later to $1,050 a month. A state Court of Appeal upheld the order in a 2-1 decision.

The high court held Thursday that the judge was entitled to consider Simpson’s earning capacity but should have based the support order on what Simpson could earn working reasonable hours.

Michael J. Rand of Encino, Simpson’s attorney, said the justices’ new guidelines would protect divorcing spouses against “involuntary servitude.”

Cheri A. Kadotani of Downey, the lawyer for Barbara Simpson, was disappointed but noted that the high court had not ruled out all consideration of overtime.

“I don’t think by any means this prevents a court from looking at what would be normal overtime in certain jobs,” said Kadotani.

George, in his opinion, said that state statutes had not detailed how earning capacity should be considered in support awards. In determining what was a reasonable standard in future cases, consideration should be given to the choice of job availability within a particular occupation, the working hours and working conditions, he said.

Established employment standards--such as the 40-hour week--were “pertinent” but not the only consideration, George wrote. In some occupations, he said, a “normal” workweek would require more than 40 hours and would be reasonable under the circumstances. But a regimen “requiring excessive hours or continuous, substantial overtime” should not determine earning capacity, he said.

In other action, the justices:

* Let stand a $2.3-million damage award to singer Peggy Lee in her suit against Walt Disney Co. over video rights to the animated film “Lady and the Tramp.”

Lee, who co-wrote six songs and provided the voices for four characters in the classic 1955 film, sued Disney for failing to pay her royalties when the movie was released on video in 1987 --ultimately registering $90 million in sales, according to the singer’s attorneys. The company contended that a 1952 contract with Lee did not cover future technology, such as video cassettes.

* Held 5 to 2 that prosecutors and defense lawyers can challenge the credibility of witnesses by asking about past criminal conduct, including misdemeanors--crimes punishable by no more than a year in jail.

For more than a century, the law had allowed such questioning only about felonies. But the court said Thursday that under the 1982 “victims bill of rights,” witnesses also could be asked about misdemeanors.