Marriage of George
Filed 7/31/06 Marriage of George CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re the Marriage of JUDITH and J. FRANK GEORGE. |
|
|
JUDITH GEORGE, Appellant, v. J. FRANK GEORGE, Respondent. |
A111671
(Marin County Super. Ct. No. FL 5644)
|
Judith George (Mother) appeals an order denying her attorney fees incurred in an earlier appeal and awarding her child support arrearages. She contends the denial of fees was an abuse of discretion and the amount of arrearages awarded on remand was incorrectly low.
J. Frank George (Father) cross-appeals from those portions of the order that denied him reimbursement for child support payments in excess of those imposed by the statutory guideline formula and those portions that denied him attorney fees he sought under Family Code section 271.
BACKGROUND
George I
The parties divorced in 1993. After living in Arizona with Mother, their three daughters returned to California to live with Father.[1] The custody and visitation order in effect in May 2002 found that the parties' youngest daughter, Jesslyn, spent approximately 10 percent of her time with Mother.
On May 1, 2003, Mother filed a petition for a modification of child support for Jesslyn, who at the time was completing her junior year of high school. The parties' support obligation for Jesslyn was to terminate when she graduated from high school in June 2004. Mother sought a support award under the statutory guidelines (Fam. Code, § 4050 et seq.) that reflected the parties' current income and 50/50 share of time with Jesslyn.
Given the parties' incomes and 50/50 timeshare, the trial court found, and the parties did not dispute, that the statutory child support guideline formula dictated that Father pay Mother $1,457 in monthly child support for Jesslyn. On September 15, 2003, when Jesslyn was then a high school senior, the trial court instead ordered Father to make monthly payments of $250 and to pay all of Jesslyn's reasonable uninsured medical, dental, and education expenses, plus all costs related to any other special needs she had. It also awarded Mother $1,500 in attorney fees.
Mother appealed the September 15, 2003 modification order. We reversed after concluding the trial court abused its discretion in departing from the statutory child support guidelines. (In re Marriage of George (Jan. 20, 2005, A104543) [nonpub.opn.], hereafter George I.) We directed the trial court on remand to award child support retroactively to Mother according to the guideline.
Post-George I Proceedings
In April 2005, after the remittitur issued in George I, Mother moved for child support of $1,457 per month, with the support order to be retroactive to September 15, 2003. She simultaneously requested that Father pay, if not all, at least a substantial portion of her appellate attorney fees. Her accompanying memorandum of costs on appeal and attorney's declaration, as finally amended, identified her total attorney fees, recoverable costs, and interest incurred in pursuing George I and the post-George I motions as $34,349.58.
Father opposed Mother's request for attorney fees on the grounds that, prior to the appeal in George I, he offered to pay Mother $1,100 per month in child support plus all â€
