In In re Marriage of Rome (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 961, the appellate court reversed a reduction of spousal support because the trial court had not permitted the wife to invoke the Philbin v. Philbin (1971) rule. The trial court had accepted at face value the husband's explanations as to why he was not working. The wife had requested the court to continue the matter for 90 days so that the parties would have a clearer picture of the husband's employment situation. Her request was denied. The opinion held that the court should have granted the 90-day extension so that evidence of husband's good or bad intentions could be more easily determined. In other words, had wife been able to establish that husband was seeking to avoid his financial responsibilities, the reduction of the award from $ 1,000 a month to $ 100 a month would have been an abuse of discretion.