In re Marriage of Petropoulos
| Decision Date | 31 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. H020650.,H020650. |
| Citation | 91 Cal.App.4th 161,110 Cal.Rptr.2d 111 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Nick and Voula PETROPOULOS. Nick Petropoulos, Appellant, v. Voula Petropoulos, Appellant. |
Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, Palo Alto, Attorney for Appellant Nick Petropoulos.
W. Kenneth Howard, San Jose, Attorney for Appellant Voula Petropoulos.
In this case, we review two orders entered in a marital dissolution action. One order modifies spousal support and the other awards sanctions.
In the first order, the trial court retroactively reduced the husband's spousal support obligation and allowed him a partial recovery of his support overpayments. Both parties challenge that order. Arguing against the husband's recovery of any support overpayments, the wife asserts that the trial court should have retroactively applied the statute in force at the time modification was ordered. By cross-appeal, the husband seeks full reimbursement of all overpayments; he argues for retroactive application of a later amendment to the statute. As we explain below, we agree with the husband's view. We therefore reverse the support modification order and remand with instructions to the trial court to give retroactive effect to the most recent amendments to the governing statute.
In the second order, the trial court awarded attorneys' fees to the husband as a sanction against the wife. She challenges that award on procedural grounds. We find no error and affirm the fee award.
Nick Petropoulos ("Husband") and Voula Petropoulos ("Wife") divorced after a 25-year marriage. A status-only dissolution was granted in September 1993.
In June 1995, Robert Redding was appointed as a special master to make findings and recommendations regarding the parties' income and assets for purposes of property division and spousal support. After lengthy hearings on the matter, the special master filed his findings and recommendations. Among other things, he recommended the in-kind division of the parties' seven residential real properties, with the result that each party would own at least two properties with a rental income stream. The special master also concluded that Husband should pay Wife $2,000 per month as spousal support, based on the marital standard of living and on the parties' respective incomes. The trial court adopted the special master's recommendations in February 1996.
In November 1996, Husband sought a reduction in his spousal support obligation. Wife filed a cross-motion to increase the spousal support Husband was paying her.
In September 1997, the court again appointed Robert Redding as a special master, this time to determine the parties' income and assets for purposes of the spousal support modification motions. The hearing on that reference took place over the course of four days in October and November 1998. Partway through the special master's hearing, the parties attended a court case management conference, at which Husband sought to expand the ongoing reference to include credibility determinations. The court granted Husband's request, and on October 29, 1998, it ordered the special master to make findings regarding the parties' credibility. Wife moved for reconsideration of that order, but the court denied her motion.
The special master filed his findings in May 1999. Those detailed findings included determinations of the parties' assets and debts, as well as their respective incomes for 1996, 1997, and 1998. The special master also made explicit findings that Wife was not credible and that her conduct frustrated settlement.
Thereafter, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the spousal support motions, which took place over the course of three days in July and August 1999. The judge entertained testimony from both Husband and Wife, from Husband's expert, and from the special master. The judge then heard argument from both parties before taking the matter under submission.
At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court also gave the parties a briefing schedule for submitting the issue of attorneys' fees. So far as the record discloses, neither party requested a separate hearing regarding fees.
On August 24, 1999, the court issued its order modifying spousal support. In that modification order, the court reduced Husband's spousal support obligation by varying amounts for 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. The court determined that Husband was entitled to reimbursement for the support overpayments he had made during the years 1996-1998, but it concluded that Husband was not entitled to recoup overpayments made in 1999 because the amended statute then in effect prohibited reimbursement.
As to attorneys' fees, the court's August 1999 order stated that the fee issue would be deemed submitted when the parties filed declarations. Both sides submitted declarations thereafter. The court issued its order regarding attorneys' fees on October 7, 1999. That order directed Wife to pay Husband $30,000 in attorneys' fees as a sanction.
Wife filed a timely appeal from the court's orders of August 1999 and October 1999. Husband cross-appealed the August 1999 order to the extent it denied him reimbursement for support overpayments made in 1999.
The following issues are before us:
1. Did the trial court misapply the governing statute in determining Husband's right to recover support overpayments? This issue is raised both by Wife on appeal and by Husband on cross-appeal.
2. Did the trial court improperly delegate its judicial authority by ordering and relying on the referee's credibility findings, as Wife contends in her appeal?
3. Did the trial court deprive Wife of her right to a hearing on the issue of sanctions, as she claims?
4. Is Husband entitled to an award of attorneys' fees on appeal, as he asserts?
We discuss each issue in turn.
Wife and Husband both assert that the trial court erred in applying the governing statute, Family Code section 3653.1 In her appeal from the August 1999 order, Wife claims that it was error for the court to reimburse Husband for support overpayments made in 1996, 1997, and 1998. That claim is based on her contention that the trial court should have retroactively applied the statute then in place, which prohibited reimbursement of overpayments. In his cross-appeal, Husband urges retroactive application of the statute as subsequently amended, which permits the recovery of overpayments that result from retroactive reduction or termination of support.
The parties' dispute over which version of the law to apply requires us to determine and interpret the governing statute and to apply that statute to undisputed facts. We are thus presented with a question of law, which we review de novo. (California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 699, 170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856; Earley v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal. App.4th 1420, 1426, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 57.)
The parties' disagreement over the governing statute has its origins in recent statutory amendments. Resolving that dispute requires an appreciation for how and when the statute changed while the parties' cross-motions for support modification were pending. For that reason, we begin by briefly describing the statute's evolution.
Original enactment: As originally enacted, former section 3653 provided for the retroactivity of orders modifying or terminating support, but the statute was silent on the permissibility of recovering excess payments.2
1999 Version: former section 3653 was amended by legislation passed in 1998.3 As relevant here, the 1998 legislation, which became effective January 1, 1999, added subdivision (c). The amendment prohibited support obligors from recouping any overpayments resulting from a retroactive reduction or termination of support.
2000 Version: Legislation enacted less than a year later rewrote section 3653, subdivision (c).4 That amendment, which became effective on January 1, 2000, completely reversed the provision's effect. In contrast to the predecessor provision, the current subdivision allows the court to order repayment of excess support following a retroactive reduction.
To resolve the issue presented in this case, we must determine which version of the statute applies and whether it applies retroactively. As noted above, Wife argues for retroactive application of the 1999 version of the statute, while Husband urges retroactive application of the 2000 version.
In response to both parties' contentions, we first observe that there is a long-standing and well-established presumption against the retroactive application of statutes. (In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 587, 128 Cal.Rptr. 427, 546 P.2d 1371.) "It is a widely recognized legal principle, specifically embodied in section 3 of the Civil Code,[5] that in the absence of a clear legislative intent to the contrary statutory enactments apply prospectively." (Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1193-1194, 246 Cal.Rptr. 629, 753 P.2d 585.)
In determining legislative intent, we begin with the words of the statute. (Lundquist v. Reusser (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1193, 1205, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 776, 875 P.2d 1279.) Here, the statute is silent regarding its prospective or retroactive application. "But the statutory language does not furnish the only resource at our disposal." (In re Marriage of Bouquet, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 587, 128 Cal.Rptr. 427, 546 P.2d 1371, fn. omitted.) A statute may be "clothed . . . with retroactive effect despite the silence of its language on the issue and the presumption against retroactive application." (Ibid., citing In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 746, 48 Cal. Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948.)6 Where the statute is silent, the courts ...
To continue reading
Request your trial