Filed 12/14/21 Cora v. Cora CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

JENNIFER CORA,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CATHERINE CORA,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Civ. No. B308834

(Super. Ct. No. 15FL02036)

(Santa Barbara County)

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver to 

collect child and spousal support and attorney fees. We affirm.

FACTS

Catherine Cora is a celebrity chef with an interest in a 

number of businesses. She was married to Jennifer Cora until

their marriage was dissolved in February 2017. They have four 

children of the marriage, all of whom were minors at the time of 

the dissolution. While Catherine worked outside of the home, 

Jennifer stayed home with the children.

At the time of the dissolution, Catherine had a monthly 

gross income of $52,305. Jennifer has serious physical and 
2.

emotional limitations and had been out of the workforce for a 

long time. The trial court declined to impute income to her.

The trial court ordered Catherine to pay $8,118 monthly 

child support and $9,500 monthly spousal support. The court

also ordered Catherine to pay Jennifer’s attorney $440,000.

Jennifer’s First Motion for Appointment of Receiver

In May 2017, Jennifer made a motion for the appointment 

of a receiver. She stated that the trial court’s order to pay 

$440,000 in attorney fees remains wholly unsatisfied, and that 

Catherine’s diverse financial interests make the appointment of a 

receiver a reasonable remedy.

The trial court made a tentative ruling granting the 

motion. But at Catherine’s request, the court continued the 

matter to give her time to make the payment. Catherine made 

the payment and no receiver was appointed.

Catherine’s Motion to Modify Support

In March 2020, Catherine made a motion to modify both 

child and spousal support. She claimed financial losses in the 

restaurant business due to the COVID pandemic made it 

impossible for her to meet her support obligations.

Catherine refused to provide the documents Jennifer’s 

accountant needed to make an analysis of Catherine’s finances. 

The trial court denied the motion, finding that Catherine failed to 

carry her burden of proof.

Instant Motion to Appoint a Receiver

In August 2020, Jennifer made the instant motion to 

appoint a receiver to collect delinquent support payments and 

attorney fees. Jennifer declared that as of April 1, 2020, 

Catherine had unilaterally reduced her $8,118 monthly payment 

for child support to $4,000 per month and stopped paying $9,500 
3.

in spousal support. The delinquent payments are $20,590 in 

child support, $47,500 in spousal support, and $50,000 in 

attorney fees.

Jennifer declared that Catherine has substantial assets she 

is not disclosing to the court. She listed 36 separate sources of 

income. Jennifer declared that due to Catherine’s experience in 

obfuscating income and assets, it will not be enough to try to levy

her bank accounts. The appointment of a receiver is necessary.

Catherine’s Response

In opposition to the motion, Catherine declared that due to 

the COVID pandemic, her estate has collapsed. She claimed she 

is earning only $1,800 per month in unemployment benefits and 

nominal income from a recent inheritance.

Catherine declared that she has provided all her financial

information with documents to Jennifer and her accountant.

Catherine requested that she not be required to open her 

businesses to a receiver. She stated she currently employs a 

financial advisor and a CPA. She claimed she is on the brink of 

bankruptcy.

Jennifer’s Reply

Jennifer replied that Catherine continues to live lavishly in 

two homes: one in Santa Barbara and the other in Beverly Hills. 

Catherine continues to hide assets and pay high-price divorce 

lawyers and an accountant instead of paying support. Jennifer 

declared that other collection efforts, including a bank levy and 

contempt proceedings, had not been successful.

Ruling

In ordering the appointment of a receiver, the trial court 

found: Catherine’s income and expense declaration does not “fill 

in the blanks” required to show her earnings and assets. Much of 
4.

the litigation has been about Catherine not paying the support 

ordered. If Catherine had her way, her support obligations would 

be held hostage to her business challenges, her business 

opportunities, and her threat of filing for bankruptcy. The court’s 

support orders would be treated as any other business obligation. 

Catherine’s assertion that Jennifer has not tried other methods of 

collection is incorrect.

DISCUSSION

I

Appointment of Receiver is Appropriate

Catherine contends the trial court erred in appointing a 

receiver.

Family Code section 290 provides, in part, “A judgment or 

order made or entered pursuant to this code may be enforced by 

the court by . . . the appointment of a receiver . . . .” We review 

the order appointing a receiver for an abuse of discretion. (City 

and County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 

744.)

Catherine relies on Medipro Medical Staffing LLC v. 

Certified Nursing Registry, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 622

(Medipro). There the trial court appointed a receiver pursuant to 

the Enforcement of Judgments Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et 

seq.1) to enforce an ordinary civil judgment. The court held that 

the trial court abuses its discretion “if it appoints a receiver to aid 

in the collection of a money judgment where the record contains 

no evidence that the judgment debtors had obfuscated or 

frustrated the creditor’s collection efforts and no evidence that

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure 

unless otherwise stated.
5.

less intrusive collection methods were inadequate or ineffective.” 

(Medipro, at pp. 624-625.)

Medipro is distinguishable. First, we are not concerned 

here with an ordinary money judgment. We are concerned with 

an order for spousal and child support. Support orders have a 

special place in the law. As our Supreme Court stated in Bruton 

v. Tearle (1936) 7 Cal.2d 48, 58: “If permanent alimony be 

regarded as a part of the husband's estate and as a portion of his 

current income and earnings, then the wife under her alimony 

judgment has an interest in the husband's earnings both those 

which have accrued and those which will fall due in the future. 

In such a case there can be no legal objection to an order of court 

appointing a receiver for the purpose of securing to the wife her 

interest in those earnings. To deny her that right would permit 

the husband, as he has done in the present case, to receive his 

salary or other income in full and make away with it before the 

wife by any legal process could claim any portion of it. By the 

proceeding resorted to in the instant case the court simply 

intercepts the husband's income before it reaches him and 

devotes it to the purposes to which the law has subjected it. 

Unless the court has the power to make and execute such an 

order, the interest of the wife in her husband's estate would be in 

many instances, as it would be in the present case, absolutely lost 

and defeated.”

Support orders are different than ordinary judgments. 

People depend on support payments to survive. Jennifer is 

unable to work and there are minor children. In denying 

Catherine’s motion to reduce support payments, the trial court 

found that granting Catherine’s request would render Jennifer 

homeless and cause their four children “extraordinary hardship 
6.

and grief.” Catherine points to no similar findings in Medipro. 

The trial court must be given much greater latitude in imposing a 

receivership to enforce support orders than in the case of an 

ordinary judgment.

Second, here there was evidence that Catherine obfuscated 

or frustrated Jennifer’s collection efforts. In the contempt 

proceeding, the trial court found that Catherine refused to 

provide the documents that Jennifer’s accountant needed. In the 

instant matter, the trial court found that Catherine’s income and 

expense declaration does not “fill in the blanks” required to show 

her earnings and assets. Catherine was doing everything she 

could not to make a full disclosure. 

Third, Jennifer attempted less intrusive collection methods. 

She made a motion to hold Catherine in contempt and 

unsuccessfully tried a bank levy. Whether this would be 

sufficient to satisfy Medipro is beside the point. Jennifer and the 

children need support. They cannot afford to wait while Jennifer 

tries various collection measures against a party who is willing 

and able to frustrate those attempts. The only collection measure 

that has proved successful was the trial court’s first order 

appointing a receiver.

Given all the circumstances of this case, the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver.

II

Scope of Receivership

Catherine contends the scope of the receivership exceeds

what is allowable by law.
7.

(a) Exemption

Catherine argues the trial court failed to identify which 

earnings are exempt from execution for her own living expenses 

and for the support of her children.

Catherine relies on sections 706.051, subdivision (b) and 

706.052, subdivision (a). Section 706.051, subdivision (b) 

provides, in part: “[T]he portion of the judgment debtor’s 

earnings that the judgment debtor proves is necessary for the 

support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s family 

supported in whole or in part by the judgment debtor is exempt 

from levy under this chapter.” Section 706.052, subdivision (a) 

provides, in part: “[O]ne-half of the disposable earnings . . . of the 

judgment debtor, plus any amount withheld from the judgment 

debtor’s earnings pursuant to any earnings assignment order for 

support, is exempt from levy under this chapter where the 

earnings withholding order is a withholding order for support 

under Section 706.030.”

Those sections are part of the Wage Garnishment Law. 

(§ 706.010 et seq.) The sections apply only to wages garnished 

from an employee. (Moses v. DeVersecy (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 

1071, 1073-1074.) They do not apply to self-employed persons. 

(Ibid.) Persons who own a controlling interest in a corporation or 

other business entity are for all intents and purposes selfemployed. Here Catherine is largely self-employed. But even if 

the sections apply, Catherine cites no authority requiring them to 

be included in the order appointing a receiver.

Catherine relies on Olsan v. Comora (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 

642. In Olsan, the trial court appointed a receiver to collect an 

ordinary money judgment from a dentist. The Court of Appeal 

affirmed the order appointing the receiver. The judgment debtor
8.

argued that the order was too hard in that it allowed the receiver 

to take possession of all his earnings when some were exempt 

under former section 690 et seq. The Court of Appeal rejected the 

argument by pointing out that the order specifically states the 

receiver is authorized to release to the judgment debtor so much 

of his earnings as would be exempt under those sections. (Olsan,

at p. 649.) 

In Olsan, the court did not say that every order appointing

a receiver must expressly reference all possible exemptions. The 

court simply answered the judgment debtor’s argument by 

pointing out that the order satisfied his particular objection. 

(Olsan v. Comora, supra, 73 Cal.App.3d at p. 649.) More to the 

point, Olsan does not say the court must identify in its order 

which earnings are exempt from execution.

Implied in the order appointing a receiver is that the 

receiver is bound to follow the law. If the law exempts certain 

earnings from the reach of the receiver, then the receiver may not 

take them. Catherine cites no authority requiring the order 

appointing a receiver to specify which laws apply.

(b) Other Entities

Catherine argues the order improperly applies to business 

entities that were not joined or in which she has no interest.

The order appointing the receiver listed a number of 

business entities. Catherine claims she has no interest in some

of those entities. She cites Stuparich Mfg. Co. v. Superior Court

(1899) 123 Cal. 290, 292, for the proposition that a receiver may 

not take possession or order the surrender of property from a 

nonparty business entity who was not a party to the underlying 

action.
9.

Catherine points to no place in the record where this issue 

was raised. Jennifer points out that Catherine is raising it for 

the first time on appeal. Issues raised for the first time on appeal 

are waived. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406.)

(c) Cost of Receivership

Catherine argues the trial court failed to take into account 

the cost and impact of a receivership on her businesses.

The receivership was necessary because Catherine refused 

to be candid with the court about her business interests and 

income. She will not now be heard to complain about the cost 

and impact to her businesses.

(d) Privileged Communications

Catherine argues the order is overly broad in that it 

requires her to turn over all correspondence to the receiver.

Catherine points out that some correspondence is covered 

by privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code, 

§ 954) and the marital privilege (id., § 980). 

If Catherine has any correspondence she deems privileged, 

she can apply to the trial court to appoint a referee to resolve the 

matter. Catherine cites no authority that the order violates her 

right to privacy.

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order) is affirmed. Costs on appeal are 

awarded to respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.
10.

Thomas P. Anderle, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Law Offices of Donald L. Briggs, Amy Shiffman Hendel, 

and Donald L. Briggs for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli, Stephanie J. Finelli; 

Drury Pullen, Susanna V. Pullen for Plaintiff and Respondent.