Cordray v. Lee
| Decision Date | 28 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | H036826 |
| Parties | MARIA CORDRAY et al., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRENT WEI-TEH LEE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CP010972)
Appellant Brent Wei-Teh Lee (Father) and respondent Maria Cordray (Mother) were romantically involved starting sometime before 1993, though they never married. They are the parents of two children, a boy, Branden, born in 1993, and a girl, Bria, born in 1995. The parties separated in 2002, with the children residing primarily with Mother but still spending significant time with Father. A 2002 court order set guideline child support at $4,632 for the two children payable monthly by Father to Mother based on Father's 33 percent custody timeshare and his monthly self-employment income of $33,333, with no income on Mother's side. The court also made a specific finding that Father's 1999 net worth was $10,000,000. In 2003, the parties stipulated to reduce child support to $3,300 per month. In 2008, Father once again sought to reduce his monthly child support payment, but the court denied his motion in early 2009,finding that it lacked sufficient information or evidence to warrant the requested reduction.
Less than a year later, in late 2009, Father once again sought to reduce child support on the bases that he was then retired at age 63 and receiving Social Security; had a substantial decline in income due to financial losses in 2008; and was uninsured and had been diagnosed with cancer, incurring substantial amounts of medical expenses for ongoing treatment. The matter was continued multiple times while the parties engaged in discovery and the court concluded a contempt proceeding filed by Mother against Father for payment of child support arrearages, which was finally resolved by Father paying amounts owed.
The 2009 child-support-modification request, Father's third such request, was finally heard in August, October, and November 2010. After roughly a combined day and a half of testimony, including that of experts, the court denied Father's request to reduce child support, as well as Mother's request for an increase, and ordered child support to continue at $3,300 per month. The court reached the conclusion that this amount was appropriate per the guidelines after imputing some monthly income to Father based on certain of his substantial assets. The court also concluded that this amount was appropriate based on an alternative finding that special circumstances existed to warrant deviation from the guidelines under Family Code section 4057, subdivision (b)(5), given Father's wealth, recent inheritance of income-producing property in Taiwan, recent cash purchases of multiple properties that were not yet income-producing, and his recent significant cash gifts to his older children and to charity.1 The court further ordered Father to pay Mother $45,000 in attorney fees and costs premised on Mother's need and Father's ability to pay, concluding that Mother's fees incurred comprised morethan one-half of her "entire net worth, but less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of father's net worth" based on his own schedule of assets. The court additionally found the award of attorney fees and costs appropriate as a sanction under section 271 in that considerable litigation time was spent due to requests made by Father; information provided by him was inaccurate and incomplete, necessitating further consumption of time and expense; Father had rejected established statutory and case law on certain points; he had maintained unmeritorious positions; and he had made two unsuccessful requests to reduce child support in a two-year period.
Father appeals from the court's order on his third child-support-modification request from 2009 that was heard in 2010. He raises numerous issues, all without sufficient legal analysis or regard for the actual record and the applicable standard of review—abuse of discretion. Mother did not file a brief, informing this court by letter of her inability to afford legal counsel on appeal.
The record amply supports the court's findings and conclusions on all matters considered and decided; therefore, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court and will affirm the order.
The parties became romantically involved before 1993 and had a son that year. Mother, significantly younger than Father, did not then work but eventually pursued a nursing degree. The parties lived together in Father's home. They had a second child, a daughter, in 1995. For some period of time while they lived together, Mother received funds from Father about twice per month. The parties separated in 2002, with Mother moving out of the house along with the children.
Mother filed a petition in June 2002 to establish paternity and to set child support and visitation. By order filed August 20, 2002, the court set monthly guideline child support at $4,632, allocated equally between the two children. Thecourt found that Father's income was from self-employment, that his 1999 net worth was $10,000,000, and that his monthly income was $33,333. The court set custody timeshare at 67 percent with Mother and the balance with Father. Father was further ordered to provide an accounting setting forth the ownership of particular properties, his interest in each, and the value of each.
Father sought to reduce child support by motion filed in March 2003. The parties stipulated to an order reducing child support to $3,300 per month—$1,320 for Branden and $1,980 for Bria. The order found that under a prior agreement, Father "was to provide documentation to support this reduction" but that he had not done so and was to comply within a month "or the prior order of child support shall be reinstated." Father filed a four page "Accounting of [his] Ownership Interest in Assets" in July 2003, which Mother has contended all along did not comply with the court's order but which she did not challenge by seeking to reinstate the increased level of child support that had been previously set.
Father filed a second motion to reduce child support in February 2008, based on an asserted change in circumstances, including financial losses in the stock market. After multiple continuances and exchanges of financial documentation though discovery and discovery motions, the matter was finally heard on the long-cause calendar on January 16, 2009. The court denied Father's second motion to modify child support, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support it; Father did not comply with reasonable discovery requests; he had substantial wealth with income-producing assets; he had the ability to pay support; Mother was gainfully employed and working substantially full time; and the children needed the existing level of support. The court further ordered Father to pay $16,969.75 towards Mother's attorney fees.
Father filed his third motion to reduce child support eight months later, in November 2009—the subject of this appeal. This time, the request was basedagain on a decline in his income and losses in the stock market and, additionally, Father's perception that the order requiring him to pay $3,300 in monthly child support was not "fair." The motion was supported by Father's declaration, in which he stated that he was then retired but had his own investment business; he had sustained about $250,000 in losses to his stock portfolio; and falling interest rates had resulted in a loss of interest income, such that his income had become negative. Father was also then 63 years old and receiving $1,062 in monthly Social Security benefits. His accompanying Income and Expense Declaration, which was signed under penalty of perjury, stated that he received $10,000 per month in interest or dividends and made monthly charitable contributions in this same amount, among other expenses, but did not acknowledge income from Social Security. He claimed that the children spent 46 percent of their time with him and 54 percent with Mother.
Father filed another declaration a month later in further support of his motion. The declaration sought a complete waiver of all child support and stated that he had been diagnosed with cancer the preceding month, did not have health insurance, had already spent some $32,000 in medical expenses, and would continue to incur significant medical expenses throughout the course of his treatment. Attached to his declaration were copies of some medical reports and bills. Father also filed schedules showing loss of income from several properties and other financial summaries of his assets and their values, along with two DissoMaster calculations reflecting guideline support for 2008 and 2009, erroneously for one child only, at $375 and $232, respectively. These support figures were generated by Michael S. Thompson, CPA, whom Father had engaged as an expert for purposes of the motion. Mr. Thompson later offered his opinion in testimony that guideline child support, according to his calculations based oninformation provided by Father, would be $264 payable monthly by Father to Mother.
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services opposed the motion, as did Mother. Mother's responsive Income and Expense Declaration, which was also signed under penalty of perjury, showed that she had obtained her nursing degree, was working as a nurse 33 hours per week plus available overtime, and making approximately $8,000 per month. Mother had liquid assets of $12,000 plus other assets worth $11,700. She paid $2,200 in monthly...
To continue reading
Request your trial