Court Opinion

ID: 9370856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 20:02:25.416611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.171919
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/23 Marriage of Hinojosa and Chain CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 In re the Marriage of JAVIER
 HINOJOSA and SANDRA ROSS
 CHAIN.
                                                                 D079650
 JAVIER GARCIA HINOJOSA,

           Appellant,                                            (Super. Ct. No. 20FL011047C)

           v.

 SANDRA ROSS CHAIN,

           Respondent.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Jinsook Ohta, Judge. Affirmed.
         William J. Baker, for Appellant.
         Sandra Ross Chain, in pro. per. for Respondent.
         Javier Garcia Hinojosa (Husband) and Sandra Ross Chain (Wife)
married in 1999 and began their marital dissolution in 2020. In February
2021, Wife filed a request for order (RFO) seeking $26,000 in attorney fees
and costs. Following a hearing, the court granted the request without stating
an amount due. In a subsequent hearing, the court ordered Husband to pay
attorney fees as a sanction in connection with Wife’s motion to quash a
medical subpoena he issued. Again, the court directed Wife’s attorney to
submit documentation of the fees and costs, but it did not state a specific
dollar amount in the order. After Husband filed an “Objection and
Opposition,” the court ordered him to pay $32,344.02 in total attorney fees
and costs.
      Husband contends that the court exceeded its authority by granting
more in attorney fees than Wife requested in her February RFO, which he
also argues denied him due process. He also contends that the court did not
make required findings to support the attorney fees award, and that the
court abused its discretion because, he alleges, Wife has a higher net income
than he does. As we explain, the court did not award more in attorney fees
than Wife requested in her RFO; nor was Husband’s due process denied.
Even if the court had awarded more in attorney fees than Wife initially
requested, because of its authority to augment requests, the court did not
exceed its authority. The court also made the required findings, and its
findings did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
                BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FACTS
      Husband and Wife married in May 1999. On December 18, 2020,
Husband filed a petition to dissolve their marriage. Wife responded.
      In February 2021, Wife filed an RFO in which she sought, among other
things, attorney fees. She indicated she had incurred $6,000 in attorney fees
to that point, and she estimated she would incur an additional $20,000.
      In his March 18, 2021 reply to the RFO, Husband contested the
attorney fees request and asked the court to direct Wife to make job contacts
and seek work. He contended Wife had the ability to pay her own attorney

                                       2
fees because she was partially supported by her wealthy family. He claimed
he could not afford her attorney fees because they had accrued debt and client
payments upon which he relied for income had been delayed. Husband asked
the court to set guideline and spousal support amounts based on a monthly
income of $14,261.
      At the April 1, 2021 hearing, Wife asked the court to use $25,000 per
month as the amount for the income analysis, and Husband asked the court
to use $14,000 per month instead. Wife calculated the $25,000 monthly
income based on a gross annual income of $400,000 and $235,000 in deposits
from independent clients in 2000. She said Husband represented to her that
he earned $25,000 per month, and her declaration stated that they spent
“upwards of $25,000 per month on living expenses.” She submitted bank
statements and spreadsheets. She also stated in her declaration that
Husband had sole and exclusive control over their community income and
assets and claimed she could not rely on family for support.
      Wife’s declaration indicated she could not maintain employment
outside the home because she had been diagnosed with cancer in 2020, which
led to diagnosis of a medical condition that causes neuroendocrine tumors to
grow in her body.
      Husband represented that he earned about $20,000 per month in 2020
and that the gross deposits to the bank account were closer to $21,000.
Husband also argued he was paying the health insurance premiums for the
family.
      The court found taxable income of $25,000 a month by Husband and
attributed to Husband monthly health premium costs. It found a disparity in
income and access to funds, and it determined that Husband was able to pay

                                       3
attorney fees for both parties. The court ordered Wife’s attorney to provide
an updated declaration with billing statements.
      Husband argued that once he paid spousal support to Wife, she would
have sufficient income to pay for her attorney because she would have more
net disposable income than he had. Husband also expressed concern that the
court did not place a ceiling on the attorney fees amount. He asked the court
to deny the attorney fees award or at least set a maximum amount.
      The court told Husband, “With regard to attorneys’ fees, your argument
is heard. When you’re meeting and conferring, you can dispute with [Wife’s
counsel] if you feel that any actions have not been appropriate or reasonable
or in bad faith with regard to the prosecution or the—with regard to the
litigation in this case, and that it has unreasonably added to the fees;
otherwise, the order of the Court as of attorneys’ fees accrued to date stand.”
      The court filed a findings and order after hearing for the April 1, 2021
hearing regarding Wife’s RFO on June 11, 2021. It found Husband had a
gross monthly self-employment income of $25,000, with monthly medical
premiums of $3,937, and Wife had a gross income of $0. However, it
recognized that it had not yet been provided with all the income information
it needed to issue interim support orders and affirmed the stipulation
between the parties to appoint a forensic accountant paid for from community
funds. The court found there was a disparity in income and access to funds,
and it found that Husband had the ability to pay the fees and costs of both
parties. It directed Wife to pay her own expenses, effective April 15, 2021,
with a few exceptions. It ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees and
costs through the date of the order. The order directed Wife’s attorney to
prepare a declaration with a summary of the fees accompanied by account

                                        4
statements. The court reserved jurisdiction to adjust the amount of fees to
account for any irregularities or improprieties.
      Following the hearing, Husband issued a subpoena on March 19 for all
of Wife’s medical records. Wife’s attorney attempted to meet and confer with
Husband’s counsel, to no avail. On April 6, 2018, Wife filed a motion to
quash the subpoena and sought sanctions against Husband.
      At the related hearing on June 8, which was continued to June 10,
2021, the court found the request for all of Wife’s medical information was too
broad. The court ordered sanctions against Husband for failing to meet and
confer, ordering Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees associated with having
to bring the motion to quash. The court directed Wife’s attorney to send a
declaration and billing information to Husband’s attorney so the parties could
agree on the amount claimed. If they could not agree, the court would resolve
their dispute.
      The court also told the parties it had reviewed the previous declaration
from Wife’s attorney and found it had sufficient information regarding the
attorney fees it had previously ordered Husband to pay. The court gave
Husband the opportunity to make specific objections to the sufficiency of the
declaration or the appropriateness of the fees. It clarified that it had
previously found disparity between the parties, so it was leaving it to the
parties to resolve their concerns; if they could not agree or if Husband found
the amount unreasonable, he should file an RFO.
      The court’s findings and order after hearings for the June 8 and 10,
2021 hearing was filed August 30, 2021. In that order, the court granted
sanctions for failing to meet and confer regarding the scope of the medical
subpoena. The sanctions were payment of attorney fees through the June 8
and 10 hearing.

                                        5
        On July 8, 2021, Husband filed an “Objection and Opposition” to the
request for attorney fees, explaining he could not afford Wife’s fees and he
does not earn the income alleged by Wife. He believed “such a massive
attorney fee award at this stage” was premature.
        Wife responded with an ex parte application and order requesting the
court strike or deny the objection, contending it was an improper attempt to
reargue the April 1 findings and order after hearing. The court told the
parties that “[a]ny attempt to relitigate the issue of fees must be brought as a
motion for reconsideration, if timely.”
        On August 6, Wife’s counsel filed a declaration in which he explained
that Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 requires a motion for
reconsideration be filed within 10 days after service of the order. He argued
Husband did not timely file a motion for reconsideration; Wife asked the
court to strike or deny the objection.
        Husband’s attorney clarified in a filing on August 10 that he did not
find any irregularities or improprieties in the declarations or fee statements,
so he did not make specific objections to the amount of attorney fees stated
therein. Husband’s objections were general because he could not afford the
fees.
        In response, Wife again requested the court strike or overrule the
objection.
        The court held a hearing on August 17, 2021. Because of some
confusion regarding the hearing time, Husband’s counsel did not appear
when the matter was first called. In Husband’s absence, the court said it was
construing the objection as an untimely motion for reconsideration, and it
denied that motion and ordered payment of the outstanding attorney fees.

                                          6
      Once Husband’s counsel appeared, the court explained that Husband’s
willingness to settle the matter did not change the way litigation had been
conducted up to that point; nor did it change the finding that there was a
disparity in income and access to funds. The court asked Husband to address
how the request was timely if it was a request for reconsideration and gave
him an opportunity to object to the attorney fee bills or to otherwise challenge
the appropriateness of Wife’s attorney’s expenses.
      Husband’s counsel explained his objection was not a motion to
reconsider because the court had not set an amount of attorney fees. He
agreed there were no irregularities or improprieties in the fee statements and
nothing unreasonable in the billings. He requested that the court order a
specific dollar amount in attorney fees and costs to start a clock for a
reconsideration motion.
      The court then ordered Husband to pay $32,344.02 to Wife based on
Wife’s attorney’s declarations and billing statements, noting that Husband
did not find the claimed amount unreasonable or inaccurate and noting no
objections to those details.
      In the related findings and order after hearing, drafted by Wife’s
attorney and filed October 4, 2021, there is a statement that the court
construed Husband’s objection as an untimely motion for reconsideration.
      Husband appealed the order to pay attorney fees and costs on
October 12, 2021.
                                 DISCUSSION
                                I. Appealability
      Wife characterizes Husband’s objection and opposition as a motion for
reconsideration of the original, April 2021 order to pay attorney fees and
costs. She contends the appeal is untimely because it was filed more than 10

                                        7
days after the first attorney fee order was served on Husband. (See Civ. Proc.
Code, § 1008, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e).) We view the
circumstances differently.
      The court initially ordered attorney fees in April 2021, based on Wife’s
February 2021 RFO, but it retained jurisdiction to resolve any issues
regarding the amount of attorney fees. In June 2021, the court issued
sanctions, awarding attorney fees related to the motion to quash, again
retaining jurisdiction to resolve any issues regarding the amount of attorney
fees. At the August 2021 hearing, before Husband’s attorney appeared or
explained the purpose of the objections, the court indicated it would construe
the objection as an untimely motion for reconsideration. However, once
Husband’s attorney appeared, he explained that Husband was not seeking
reconsideration; he was seeking a more specific order. Once the court ordered
payment of $32,344.02 in attorney fees, rather than file a motion for
reconsideration, Husband opted to appeal the award.
      Although Husband argues in his appeal that the family court erred by
failing to make required findings to award any attorney fees and costs, his
appeal also challenges the dollar amount of the award more specifically
because he contends it was improper to award more than an amount sought.
Husband could not make this contention until the court ordered a specific

                                       8
amount paid, and that did not occur until August 17, 2021. Accordingly, his

October appeal, which addresses that issue, is timely.1
                           II. Attorney Fees Awards
                               A. Legal Principles

      The Family Code2 authorizes pendente lite attorney fee awards to help
equalize parties’ litigation resources. (§ 2030, subd. (a)(1); In re Marriage of
Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1315-1316.) These awards can be
augmented or modified “as may be reasonably necessary,” including after any
appeal has been concluded. (§ 2030, subd. (c); In re Marriage of Cryer (2011)
198 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1056 (Cryer).) Section 2030, subdivision (a) requires
the court to find whether an award of attorney’s fees and costs is appropriate,
whether there is a disparity in access to funds, and whether one party is able
to pay the fees for both parties. (§ 2030, subd. (a)(2).) “If the findings
demonstrate disparity in access and ability to pay, the court shall make an
order awarding attorney’s fees and costs.” (In re Marriage of Morton (2018)
27 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1050 [requisite findings, which can be made in writing
or orally on the record, require order to pay fees and costs]; In re Marriage of
Knox (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 15, 21, 26; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.427

1      Although we find the appeal timely for the reasons we have explained,
we note that Code of Civil Procedure section 1008’s time limit does not
always foreclose a motion for reconsideration of pendente lite attorney fees
sought under Family Code section 2030 because pendente lite attorney fee
awards can be augmented or modified “as may be reasonably necessary.”
(Fam. Code, § 2030, subd. (c), Cryer, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1056.) At
least one case has held that the jurisdictional requirements of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1008 can be displaced when there are repeated family law
pendente lite attorney fee requests. (See In re Marriage of Hobdy (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 360, 367, 371-373.)

2     Unspecified statutory references are to the Family Code.
                                      9
[requiring court in marriage dissolution proceeding to rule on motion for
attorney fees within 15 days of the hearing].) If a court fails to make express
findings, a party must demonstrate prejudice for relief. (Morton, at p. 1051.)
      “The family court has considerable latitude to make a just and
reasonable fee award” (Cryer, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1054) and retains
authority to augment or modify attorney fee awards “as may be reasonably
necessary” throughout litigation, including after an appeal has been
concluded. (§ 2030, subd. (c); Cryer, at p. 1056.)
      Section 271 separately authorizes the trial court to assess fees and
costs against a party for uncooperative conduct that frustrates settlement.
(See In re Marriage of Feldman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1470, 1495.) This
award does not rely on the applicant spouse’s “financial need.” (§ 271; see In
re Marriage of Fong (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 278, 289-293 (Fong).) A court
may issue sanctions during the lawsuit. (Feldman, at p. 1495.)
      We review pendente lite attorney fee awards and sanctions under
section 271 for an abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 1139, 1166 [attorney fees]; In re Marriage of Burgard (1999) 72
Cal.App.4th 74, 82 [sanctions].) “ ‘The discretion invoked is that of the trial
court, not the reviewing court, and the trial court’s order will be overturned
only if, considering all the evidence viewed most favorably in support of its
order, no judge could reasonably make the order made. [Citations.]’
[Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Keech (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 860, 866 (Keech).)
                                  B. Analysis
        1. The Court Awarded Less in Attorney Fees than Requested
      Wife’s February RFO sought an anticipated $26,000 in attorney fees
and costs, which included $6,000 already expended. The court separately
ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorney fees in connection with her motion to

                                       10
quash the medical subpoena as a sanction for failing to meet and confer.
Courts have authority to award those fees without relying on the applicant
spouse’s “financial need.” (§ 271; see Fong, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 289-293.)
      The sanctioned attorney fees, which Husband did not find unreasonable
or irregular, totaled $6,946.75, comprised of $1,773.25 from March 24
through April 1, 2021, and $5,173.50 from April 2 to June 8, 2021. Although
we do not know the amount claimed by Wife’s attorney in response to the
February RFO because that declaration is not in the record, we can deduce
that the court’s order included $25,397.27 in attorney fees and costs for
litigation through the date of the June hearing. We derive this number from
subtracting the $6,946.75 in sanctions from the total amount awarded,
$32,344.02. What remains is $25,397.27 attributable to attorney fees and
costs separate from the sanctions. Thus, the court did not grant an amount
in attorney fees greater than the $26,000 requested by Wife in her February
RFO because the remaining amount was a sanction.
      Although it makes no difference in the present case, we note that even
were we to accept Husband’s claim that Wife received more in attorney fees
than she initially requested, we would not find an abuse of discretion. A
court retains authority to augment or modify attorney fee awards “as may be
reasonably necessary” throughout litigation. (§ 2030, subd. (c); Cryer, supra,
198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1056.) Limiting the awardable amount to the amount a
party anticipates at the outset of litigation would be inconsistent with the
court’s authority to augment and modify the award.
                   2. There Was No Due Process Violation
      Husband was not denied due process. He vigorously challenged the
award of attorney fees at the April 1 hearing, and the court nonetheless

                                      11
awarded the fees accrued through that date. When the parties appeared in
June, Husband again challenged the attorney fees award, and the court told
him that if he believed the specific amount requested was unreasonable or he
disagreed, he could return to the court via a request for order on that portion.
In August, the court asked Husband if he had any objections to the actual
billing or the appropriateness of the expenditures and attorney fees
submitted by Wife’s attorney. Husband did not raise an objection on that
point. Thus, Husband was given notice and an opportunity to be heard
regarding the amount of attorney fees before court made the award final.
(See Midway Venture LLC v. County of San Diego (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 58,
77-78 [discussing due process requirements].)
                  3. The Court Made the Required Findings
      Before granting Wife’s February RFO for attorney fees, the court
considered the parties’ circumstances and made a finding that there was a
disparity in income because Husband had a gross income of $25,000 per
month and Wife had a gross income of $0 per month. The court had before it
evidence submitted by Wife that Husband represented to her that he made
$25,000 per month, Wife’s statement that the couple spent “upwards of
$25,000 per month on living expenses,” and bank statements and
spreadsheets submitted by Wife.
      The court also concluded there was a disparity in access to funds, and
Husband had the ability to pay the costs and fees of both parties. The court
based this conclusion, at least in part, on its finding that Husband was
earning $25,000 per month and Wife was earning $0. Although Husband
disputed Wife’s claim that she was unable to work, her declaration explained
she had health conditions that precluded employment outside the home
because she had been diagnosed with cancer in July 2020, as well as a

                                       12
condition that causes neuroendocrine tumors to grow in her body. Further,
Wife’s declaration stated that Husband had sole and exclusive control over
community income and assets.
      We are not persuaded by Husband’s argument that the court
improperly compared the gross salaries of Husband and Wife in awarding
attorney fees, other than the sanctions award, to Wife. Nothing in the
statute requires the court to consider the net income of the parties instead of
their gross incomes when evaluating pendente lite attorney fee obligations.
Further, this is not a situation in which the court failed to consider the
expenses of the parties, as was the case in Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009)
172 Cal.App.4th 238, at pages 253-254, the case upon which Husband relies.
Instead, the court considered all the information before it, including Wife’s
ability to work, the length of time since her last employment, Husband’s
earning capacity, the parties’ income, assets, and standard of living, and their
financial obligations, all subject to additional information provided by a
forensic accountant. (See § 4320.) Moreover, after Husband argued that
there was no large community estate or access to funds and seeking a limit to
the payment of attorney fees, the court told Husband, “With regard to
attorneys’ fees, your argument is heard. When you’re meeting and
conferring, you can dispute with [Wife’s counsel] if you feel that any actions
have not been appropriate or reasonable or in bad faith with regard to the
prosecution or the—with regard to the litigation in this case, and that it has
unreasonably added to the fees; otherwise, the order of the Court as of
attorneys’ fees accrued to date stand.” Thus, the record “reflect[s] an actual
exercise of discretion and a consideration of the statutory factors in the
exercise of that discretion.” (Alan S., at p. 254.)

                                        13
      Although Husband argues on appeal that he was not in a better
position to pay the fees than Wife was because there “are no liquid marital
assets,” “no retirement funds,” and “no savings, stocks or money market
accounts,” but “at least $290,000 in personal and business debt,” there is
evidence in the record challenging these assertions. For instance, the 2019
tax return showed a retirement account, and Wife’s declaration revealed a
financial aid form, the FAFSA, for their oldest child indicated an investment
valued at $150,000. Additionally, some of the debt Husband claimed was for
a non-recourse loan to his business, for which he was not personally liable,
and it was not yet due and payable. These facts support the court’s
conclusion that Husband could afford the attorney fees.
      The court’s order is consistent with its conclusion that Wife lacked
access to a means to pay the attorney fees. Her declaration indicated that
Husband denied her access to their joint bank account, cancelled or reduced
credit card limits, and had the sole and exclusive control of community
income and assets. Moreover, the court did not order Husband to pay all of
Wife’s attorney fees for the pendency of the matter. As Wife points out in her
respondent’s brief, the court ordered payment of the attorney fees only
through the hearing date, after which time Wife regained access to some
funds because the court then ordered payment of support and deductions
needed for health insurance. Husband was not responsible to pay Wife’s
attorney fees once Wife had income and access to funds.
      Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the order, we
cannot conclude no judge could reasonably conclude there was an income
disparity or that Husband had the ability to pay the costs and fees of both
parties. (See Keech, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 866.)

                                      14
                             DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed. Husband to pay costs on appeal.

                                                   HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

DO, J.

                                    15