Court Opinion

ID: 9733310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:02:28.849166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:40.372054
License: Public Domain

ROTH, P. J.
Janice and Rene Modglin were married on November 6, 1948. They were divorced on November 25, 1959. There were two daughters of the marriage. At the time of the divorce, Janice received custody of the two children and an award of $125 per month child support for each child. She also received $200 per month alimony for 12 months; thereafter, $1.00 per month.
On January 3, 1964, Rene responded to an order to show cause requesting an increase in child support and alimony, and seeking attorneys’ fees and costs. Janice contended more funds were required for the support of the children, now teenagers, and that more room and new furniture were required for the family of three, and further, that she was in need of substantial dental attention for herself and showed in addition, that her present net income, approximately $3,600 per annum, as a nurse, was lower than it was at the time of the divorce.
*413Rene, a physician, has remarried and adopted his present wife’s child from a former marriage. He is sole owner of a chain of medical laboratories known as Bio Laboratories, from which he derives the greater part of his income. He is also a salaried staff member of Patton State Hospital. Rene’s net income was shown to be approximately $36,000 per annum.
The trial judge increased the amount of child support to $250 per month for each child, and awarded $500 attorneys’ fees. The alimony of $1.00 to Janice was not increased.
The order for child support is not challenged by either party.
The first of these appeals is from those parts of the order which did not increase the alimony and which awarded $500 attorneys’ fees. Janice contends that the court prejudged her right to an alimony increase and that the hearing was summary and inadequate for the proper presentation of her ease.
In a separate order to show cause, appeal No. 29690, Janice sought an allowance for attorneys’ fees and costs to enable her to appeal from those portions of the first order heretofore noted. The second appeal is from the order denying her request for fees and costs of appeal.
Evidence on Janice’s financial condition and on Rene’s ability to pay was admitted. Much of this information was received in written form as answers to interrogatories and affidavits. The trial judge indicated that he did not wish to have repeated in oral testimony information already before the court in writing. Appellant, however, was given an opportunity to testify and present all relevant facts, and further, to examine all witnesses she had produced.
Appellant’s testimony was brief. Respondent’s accountant was fully examined. Appellant did not call the present Mrs. Modglin, although she was present in court and testimony showed that Mrs. Modglin handled the doctor’s personal finances.
The trial court had before it the interlocutory decree dated November 25,1959. This decree made a detailed division of all property pursuant to a stipulation of the parties. Substantially all of the property, other than husband’s pathology laboratory located in San Bernardino, a 1957 Thunderbird automobile and unenumerated personal property in possession of husband, was awarded to appellant.
The record before us does not indicate nor suggest that the hearing was inadequate or that the court prejudged the issue of alimony.
*414Appellant’s declaration in support of the order to show cause admits that her income is $333 per month and that her current expenditures for self and two children are $584 per month. In this declaration she shows item by item how such expenditures will be increased in the future to $1,145 per month. With the increased allowance for the children she will have $833 per month. We must assume the trial judge analyzed each item. There is no showing of physical or mental ill health or any dire circumstances on part of appellant. The interlocutory decree specifically provides for medical and dental care of the children, in addition to any fixed amounts allowed for their support.
The trial court has wide discretion in making an award of alimony, or in modifying a prior award. In De Santo v. De Santo, 162 Cal.App.2d 126, the court says at p. 128 [328 P.2d 463] :
“It is the general rule that in a divorce action the trial court is given a wide discretion in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded to the wife, having regard for the circumstances of the respective parties, and a reviewing court is limited to the question whether the trial court abused its discretion in making the order. ’ ’
In Baldwin v. Baldwin, 28 Cal.2d 406, the court says at p. 413 [170 P.2d 670] :
“ ‘Before the appellate courts will interfere, it must be made clearly and affirmatively to appear upon the face of the entire record in the case that this discretion has been abused. ’ ”
In Newbauer v. Newbauer, 95 Cal.App.2d 36, the court says at p. 40 [212 P.2d 240] :
“That the members of this court might have been more liberal is not the test. The discretion was the trial judge’s, not ours; and we can only interfere if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did. (Fillmore v. Fillmore, 74 Cal.App.2d 418 [168 P.2d 725]; Cozzi v. Cozzi, 81 Cal.App.2d 229 [183 P.2d 739]; Furniss v. Furniss, 75 Cal.App.2d 138 [170 P.2d 486].) ”
The record before us shows, that the interlocutory judgment insofar as its property and support provisions are concerned, was the result of stipulation in open court in marital litigation in which there was a complaint and a cross-complaint. It shows further that respondent, in order to meet certain of the obligations required of him by the judgment, *415was compelled to borrow money from appellant and appellant was required to lend it to him. The loans were made and have since been repaid.
We have no right to assume that the parties when they made their stipulation for alimony of $200 per month for one year, and $1.00 per month thereafter, did not know precisely what they were doing. We have no way of knowing what multitude of factors, or even what single consideration, entered into those stipulations. There is no suggestion, even remote, that any of them were illegally induced.
In these circumstances, even though respondent’s business has spread beyond the County of San Bernardino and his business and net earnings are probably geometrically increased over and above what they were at the time of the interlocutory decree, we do not feel justified, on the showing here made, in reopening the divorce litigation, and in effect setting aside a bargain originally made in open court under the supervision of a superior court judge.
Viewing the record before us “. . . most favorably in support of the trial court’s actions,” we cannot say “. . . no judge could reasonably have made the order” before us. Insofar as the alimony feature of the order is concerned, we do not disturb it.
Attorneys for appellant submitted an accounting and request for fees to the trial judge. When the amount was fixed, counsel for appellant said “. . . the legal fees are disproportionate to the . . . work that was generated.” It does appear without contradiction in the record that appellant’s attorney did approximately 40 hours of work, aside from the time spent in trying the O.S.C. However, . . [T]he critical question is not whether the attorney ought to be paid but whether the wife has need of the money to maintain the proceedings in question.” (Cope v. Cope, 230 Cal.App.2d 218, 236 [40 Cal.Rptr. 917]; Straub v. Straub, 213 Cal.App.2d 792, 799 [29 Cal.Rptr. 183].) Such an award is not a matter of right. (Chapman v. Tarentola, 187 Cal.App.2d 22, 25 [9 Cal.Rptr. 228].)
The question of the reasonableness of the order for $500 attorneys’ fees is also addressed to the trial court’s discretion.
The record justifies a more substantial allowance. We cannot say however that “. . .no judge could reasonably have made the order” (Newbauer v. Newbauer, supra, p. 40). We cannot say that there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion. *416(Primm v. Primm, 46 Cal.2d 690, 696 [299 P.2d 231]; Wilder v. Wilder, 214 Cal. 783, 785 [7 P.2d 1032].) It may well be that the trial judge was of the opinion that much of the time spent by counsel was on the alimony aspect of the O.S.C., and that, in his opinion, there was no showing to disturb a bargain made and approved in open court.
We turn now to the order denying fees and costs on appeal. In Wittman v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.2d 734, the court says at p. 736 [66 P.2d 180] :
‘ ‘ The law is well settled . . . , that the right of a defeated wife to prosecute at the husband’s expense her appeal from a judgment . . . rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and that therefore its action denying an application therefor will not be disturbed save when it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused. [Citations].”
The record does pose a genuine question as to the alimony rights of appellant. It also shows in view of very limited income of appellant, the generous net income of respondent, and the amount of work performed, that the allowance of attorneys’ fees was on the frugal side. The question of abuse of discretion is often sensitive. On the record before us, it is not difficult to understand that appellant felt in good faith that the orders with which she is dissatisfied, should be reviewed. In these circumstances, language of the court in Hunter v. Hunter, 202 Cal.App.2d 84, at p. 93 [20 Cal.Rptr. 730], is apposite:
“To tell a woman who wishes in good .faith to appeal a judgment in a divorce action and who is without funds to pay necessary counsel fees that no such fees will be allowed ... is practically equivalent to denying her the right to appeal unless her attorney is willing to act without compensation or for the mere possibility that some attorney’s fee may be awarded later. In Norris v. Norris, 50 Cal.App.2d 726, 735 [123 P.2d 847], where a similar question was being considered, the court dealt with the facts as follows:
“ ‘Prom appellant’s affidavit and the evidence in..the record it appears to be uncontroverted that appellant did not have the' funds necessary to prosecute the appeal or to pay attorneys’ fees, that respondent is able to pay .a reasonable sum therefor, and that the appeal was taken in good faith and presented debatable questions which were not without substantial merit or controversy. Under these circumstances it must be held that the court erred in denying appellant’s application .for a reasonable allowance, for costs’ and counsel fees on appeal.’ (See also Coleman v. Coleman, 23 Cal.App. 423, 426 *417[138 P. 362]; Weil v. Weil, 37 Cal.2d 770, 791 [236 P.2d 159].)”
The order in appeal No. 29048 is affirmed.
The order in appeal No. 29690 is reversed.
Since the order in appeal No. 29690 could not have been properly reviewed without the record in appeal No. 29048, costs of appeal in both cases are awarded to appellant.