Johnson v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 19 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. B120155,B120155
• Citation: 66 Cal.App.4th 68,77 Cal.Rptr.2d 624
• Parties: , 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6502, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931 Larry JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Laura Tate, Real Party in Interest.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 624

77 Cal.Rptr.2d 624

66 Cal.App.4th 68, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6502,

98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931

Larry JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent;

Laura Tate, Real Party in Interest.

No. B120155.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Aug. 19, 1998.

Kaufman & Young and Lance S. Spiegel, Beverly Hills, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Freid and Goldman, Manley Freid and Gary J. Cohen, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest.

MASTERSON, Associate Justice.

The statewide uniform child support guidelines (Fam.Code, § 4050 et seq. ¹ ) establish a presumption that the amount of a child support award is to be determined by a common formula. The presumption may be rebutted when the parent being ordered to pay support has an "extraordinarily high income." Estevez v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 423, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470 holds that once the guideline presumption has been rebutted in this manner, an extraordinarily high earning parent who offers to pay any reasonable amount of court-ordered child support does not need to provide detailed financial discovery to the other parent. We find that the rationale of Estevez applies to this case. We therefore grant a high earning parent's petition for a writ of mandate and order the trial court to disallow such detailed discovery.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Larry Johnson is a professional athlete with the New York Knicks basketball team. While the Knicks were in Los Angeles, Johnson had sexual relations with real party in interest Laura Tate. Their child, Taylor, was born on August 2, 1997.

Following Taylor's birth, Tate filed a complaint to establish paternity and for child support. She further requested sole custody of Taylor and that Johnson not be granted visitation. In answering the complaint Johnson admitted paternity and consented to the custody and visitation orders requested by Tate. He asserted that his annual income exceeds $1 million and that he has the ability to pay any amount of support the court determines to be reasonable. In December 1997, a pendente lite child support order was entered in the amount of $8,850 per month, with an additional $2,500 per month for a nanny.

In January 1998, Tate made a request for production of several categories of documents. The categories included documents evidencing moneys and fringe benefits paid to Johnson, contracts, tax returns, living expenses for himself and his minor children, travel expenses, bank records, real property holdings, and insurance records. Johnson sought a protective order, asserting that under Estevez v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th 423, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, he was not required to reveal information regarding his income and lifestyle. Tate countered that discovery was required because she had information which indicated that Johnson's annual income was closer to $12 million, and that the difference between this amount and the $1 million admitted by Johnson would be significant in determining Taylor's reasonable needs.

Johnson's motion for the protective order was heard in respondent superior court on February 25, 1998. In ruling on the motion, the court interpreted Estevez to be in conflict On March 12, 1998, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the order to the extent that his request was partially denied. ³ On March 19, we issued an order to show cause and placed the matter on calendar for argument.

with the general rule that support should be set at an amount that enables the child to share in the standard of living of the more affluent parent. The court attempted to resolve this conflict by prohibiting discovery of Johnson's income and assets, but permitting discovery of his lifestyle. It therefore granted the requested protective order in part and denied it in part. The protective order was denied with respect to documents pertaining to the living expenses of Johnson and his other children, ² Johnson's non-business travel expenses, his real property ownership records and his insurance coverage records.

DISCUSSION

It has long been the law that "[a] child, legitimate or illegitimate, is entitled to be supported in a style and condition consonant with the position in society of its parents." (Kyne v. Kyne (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 80, 83, 160 P.2d 910.) "The father's duty of support for his children does not end with the furnishing of mere necessities if he is able to afford more." (Bailey v. Superior Court (1932) 215 Cal. 548, 555, 11 P.2d 865.) "A child's 'need' for more than the bare necessities ... varies with the parents' circumstances. [Citations.] [p] Accordingly, where the supporting parent enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds that of the custodial parent, child support must to some degree reflect the more opulent lifestyle even though this may, as a practical matter, produce a benefit for the custodial parent." (In re Marriage of Catalano (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 543, 552, 251 Cal.Rptr. 370.)

In White v. Marciano (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1026, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779, the court addressed the question of whether "detailed evidence concerning a noncustodial parent's lifestyle and net worth [is] relevant in determining what amount of child support is 'reasonable' where the noncustodial parent stipulates that he has an income of $1 million per year and is able to pay any reasonable amount of child support." (Id. at p. 1031, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779.) The court found:

"Clearly where the child has a wealthy parent, that child is entitled to, and therefore 'needs' something more than the bare necessities of life. It is also clear that the court is required to consider, in a general sense, the noncustodial parent's standard of living. However, ... a trial court is not required to consider detailed lifestyle and net worth evidence in reaching a decision as to the needs of the child or the amount of support to be awarded.

"The standard of living to which a child is entitled should be measured in terms of the standard of living attainable by the income available to the parents rather than by evidence of the manner in which the parents' income is expended and the parents' resulting lifestyle. It matters not whether the ... noncustodial parent miserly hoarded his $1 million per year income and lived the life of a pauper or whether he lived the life of a prince spending every cent of the available income.

"[E]vidence of detailed lifestyle and net worth [is] relevant only in those situations where the ability of the noncustodial parent to make adequate support payments may be affected by the unwise expenditure of income to the detriment of the supported minor. Where there is no question of the noncustodial parent's ability to pay any reasonable support order, ... evidence of detailed lifestyle [is] irrelevant to the issue of the amount of support to be paid and thus protected from discovery and inadmissible in determining the support order." (Id. at p. 1032, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779.)

The uniform child support guidelines took effect in 1992 as Civil Code former section 4720 et seq. Under the guidelines, the interests of the child continue to be given "top priority." (§ 4053, subd. (e).) The guidelines set forth a complex algebraic formula for determining the appropriate amount of child Estevez v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th 423, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, was decided after the uniform guidelines had taken effect. The issue presented was whether section 4056, subdivision (a)(1), of the guidelines had abrogated the rule of White v. Marciano, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d 1026, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779.

                support.  (§ 4055.)  The support amount rendered under the guideline formula "is intended to be presumptively correct in all cases...."  (§ 4053, subd.  (k).)  This presumption may be rebutted by evidence of various factors, including that "[t]he parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the children."  (§ 4057, subd.  (b)(3).)   Nonetheless, under section 4056, subdivision (a), "[t]o comply with federal law, the court shall state ... whenever [it] is ordering an amount for support that differs [66 Cal.App.4th 73] from the statewide uniform guideline formula ... (1) The amount of support that would have been ordered under the guideline formula." 4
                

In Estevez, the father provided a support "package" in excess of $14,000 a month for his two minor children. The mother was not dissatisfied with the total amount of support, but requested modification as to "the manner in which it was dispensed...." (22 Cal.App.4th at p. 426, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470.) In furtherance of her request, the mother sought discovery of all documents relevant to the father's income and lifestyle. (Id. at p. 427, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470.) The father resisted discovery on the ground that he earned an extraordinarily high income and had agreed to pay whatever reasonable amount of support the court ordered. Accordingly, the father argued, he was entitled to the benefit of case law (e.g., White v. Marciano, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d 1026, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779) precluding discovery of financial records in such a situation. (Estevez v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 427, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470.) The mother responded that the case law on which the father relied had been abrogated by the section 4056, subdivision (a)(1) requirement that a finding be made as to the amount of support required by the guideline formula before deviation from that formula is permitted. (22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 427-428, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 470.)

The Estevez court reviewed the relevant legal and legislative history and concluded that White v. Marciano, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d 1026, 235 Cal.Rptr. 779, had not been abrogated by the uniform guidelines. ⁵ Thus, discovery of the father's financial records was "unnecessary, to say nothing of unduly burdensome and oppressive [citations] ... because the...