Ankola v. Ankola

• Decision Date: 17 February 2023
• Docket Number: B322550,B322558,B322562
• Parties: MANISHKUMAR ANKOLA, Petitioner and Appellant, v. PRIYANKA ANKOLA, Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

MANISHKUMAR ANKOLA, Petitioner and Appellant, v. PRIYANKA ANKOLA, Respondent.

B322550, B322558, B322562

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

February 17, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County No. 15FL173072 James E. Towery, Judge. Affirmed.

Manishkumar Ankola for Petitioner and Appellant.

No appearances for Defendant and Respondent.

RICHARDSON (ANNE K.), J. ^[*]

INTRODUCTION

These are three appeals^[1] arising from a judgment of dissolution. Petitioner Manish^[2] Ankola challenges numerous rulings by the trial court below; specifically: 1) the court erred in its ruling on the parties' date of separation; 2) the court abused its discretion in denying Manish's motion to compel and request for terminating and/or monetary sanctions 3) the court abused its discretion in denying temporary spousal support to Manish; 4) the court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees to Manish as a prevailing party in domestic violence restraining order proceedings; and 5) the court exhibited bias against him during the trial on property issues, necessitating different orders or a remand for a new trial.^[3] Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Manish filed a petition for nullity on December 15, 2015 alleging that his marriage to respondent Priyanka Ankola was voidable based on fraud.^[4] He stated that the date of marriage was June 12, 2014, and the date of separation was November 30, 2015. Priyanka filed her response seeking a dissolution of the marriage and claiming the date of separation as October 4, 2015.

1. Prior appellate proceedings

This case has already resulted in two published opinions arising from at least four prior appeals. (In re Marriage of Ankola (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 560 (Ankola I) and In re Marriage of Ankola (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 369 (Ankola II).) As relevant to the issues in the present appeals, we will summarize the facts from those two opinions briefly.

In Ankola I, the Court of Appeal reversed the grant of a mutual domestic violence restraining order where the statutory requirements were not met. Priyanka filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) in May 2016.^[5](Ankola I, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 563.) After several continuances, the trial on the DVRO and on Manish's petition for nullity came on for hearing in September 2016. The trial court denied both Manish's request to declare the marriage a nullity and Priyanka's request for a DVRO. (Ibid.)

In February 2017, Priyanka filed a second request for a DVRO, which was granted by the trial court on August 15, 2017 (the August 2017 DVRO) for the maximum allowable period of five years. (Ankola I, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 563.)

The very next day, August 16, 2017, Manish filed his own request for a DVRO against Priyanka. (Ankola I, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 563.) While Priyanka filed a response, she did not file a separate application for another DVRO. (Ibid.)

Manish's request for a DVRO came on for hearing in 2018. After the matter was submitted, the trial court found" 'under Family Code section 6305 that each party has committed acts of domestic violence'" and that neither party was" 'primarily acting out of self-defense,'" and thus ordered mutual restraining orders against Priyanka and Manish. (Ankola I, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 564.) In April 2018, the trial court entered the second DVRO against Manish (the April 2018 DVRO).^[6] (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal reversed the April 2018 DVRO against Manish, reasoning that the criteria set forth in Family Code section 6305, subdivision (a)(1) had not been met. Specifically, as to the second DVRO, Priyanka had not filed a second request for restraining order using a Judicial Council restraining order application form. (Ankola I, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at pp. 565-567.)

The appellate court further rejected the argument that the April 2018 DVRO was a modification of the August 2017 DVRO, which was by then the subject of a separate appeal. (Id. at p. 567.) The court ordered that "the parties shall bear their own costs on appeal." (Id. at p. 568.)

In Ankola II, the appellate court ruled on three appeals relating to various rulings of the lower court as of that date. It first affirmed the five-year August 2017 DVRO against Manish, finding substantial evidence supported the order.^[7] It also affirmed the trial court's ruling denying Manish's petition for nullity and granting a judgment of dissolution instead. (Ankola II, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 372.)

The appellate court reversed, however, the trial court's ruling rescinding a prior award of attorney's fees in Manish's favor.^[8] (Ankola II, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at pp. 372-373.) The facts leading to this conclusion were as follows. Subsequent to the hearing on the first request for DVRO filed by Priyanka, which was denied by the trial court in September 2016, the court held a separate hearing on Manish's request for attorney's fees as a prevailing party in that DVRO action. In March 2017 the court granted Manish's request in the amount of $10,000. (Id. at pp. 373-374.)

After Priyanka obtained the August 2017 DVRO against Manish, she then moved for attorney's fees as a prevailing party in that proceeding. (Ankola II, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 374.) In October 2017 the court both awarded fees to Priyanka (in the amount of $10,562.50) and rescinded the $10,000 fees it had previously awarded to Manish. (Ibid.) Explaining its order rescinding Manish's fee award, the trial court had stated that it" 'recall[ed]'" the first DVRO request that Priyanka filed and was" 'sorry, in retrospect, [that the court] denied it.'" (Id. at p. 382.) The court further referenced Manish's" 'untruthful testimony'" on the witness stand in connection with the August 2017 DVRO. (Ibid.)

The Court of Appeal held this was reversible error because the basis of the trial court's rescission of Manish's attorney's fee award was new evidence, rather than the evidence presented at the original proceeding. Thus, the court had effectively and improperly granted a new trial, sua sponte. (Ankola II, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at pp. 383-384.)

The Ankola II court granted Priyanka her costs on the two appeals she prevailed on. But it ordered the parties to bear their own costs on the appeal Manish prevailed on. (Id. at p. 390.)

2. Manish's request for attorney's fees in connection with DVRO proceedings

The opinion in Ankola I, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th 560 was issued in June 2019. The following September, Manish filed in the trial court a request for order (RFO) for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $36,059 for having prevailed in the DVRO against Priyanka (the April 2018 DVRO) and for the mutual DVRO "reversed on appeal."

Manish sought $15,868 in connection with the underlying trial on the April 2018 DVRO, $17,900 for attorney's fees expended on the Ankola I appeal, and $2,291 for opposing Priyanka's motion to set aside the DVRO against her.

The hearing on Manish's motion for fees was held in November 2019. The court denied the motion. At oral argument, the court articulated its reasoning as follows: 1) the Court of Appeal did not make any order for attorney's fees on appeal; 2) the trial court had already made a finding that neither party was a prevailing party at the hearing on the mutual DVRO and did not intend for either party to be awarded fees relating to that April 2018 DVRO hearing; 3) it would be inequitable to require Priyanka to pay Manish's fees from the second DVRO, given that there was at the time a five-year DVRO against Manish; and 4) the court had already denied Manish's request for fees in connection with the hearing on Priyanka's request to set aside the DVRO against her.

3. Motion for terminating and monetary sanctions

While the various appeals were pending, discovery was ongoing. Multiple motions to compel were filed. In August 2019, Manish filed a motion for terminating sanctions, to compel further responses and production of documents, and for monetary sanctions against Priyanka and her counsel.

This motion was also heard at the November 2019 hearing. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely and that Priyanka "used good faith to provide reasonable responses to the best of her ability."

4. Manish's requests for temporary spousal support

Manish first requested temporary spousal support in February 2019. The trial court denied the request in March 2019.

In November 2020, Manish again requested temporary spousal support. The trial court again denied the request.

5. The trial on property issues and date of separation

At a status conference in November 2020, Manish stated he was not ready for trial and sought a continuance. The trial court granted the request and set trial for January 2021. The court's estimate was two hours. Manish claims that he requested a two-day trial and named four witnesses.^[9]

Manish then filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence that had not been provided in Priyanka's discovery responses or in her trial brief. The court heard the motion on the day of trial and deferred ruling on it until "conclusion of trial." The trial took place over a period of approximately two hours and thirty-five minutes with a twenty-minute break. The court issued its tentative statement of decision finding the date of separation to be December 15, 2015 and making various orders regarding property division. Manish filed objections to it, and the court then issued its final statement of decision, which did not differ from the proposed draft.

DISCUSSION

A. Competing Rules of Court

Several of Manish's contentions on appeal (the date of separation and on the...