Kamen v. Ernst
Filed 7/2/12
Kamen v. Ernst CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
EDWARD R.
KAMEN,
Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH J.
ERNST,
Respondent.
B236728
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
BD313591)
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of
County.
Christine Byrd, Judge.
Affirmed.
Mary E. Gram,
for Appellant.
No
appearance by Respondent.
__________________________
Edward R. Kamen appeals from the
trial court’s order directing him to reimburse his former wife, respondent
Elizabeth J. Ernst, for his half of their children’s health care expenses. We affirm.
Appellant
Edward R. Kamen (husband) and respondent Elizabeth J. Ernst (wife) divorced in
2000. In 2005, they agreed to a
parenting plan for their children which, among other things, obligated them to
share equally the cost of their children’s health care. The court’s order adopting the parenting plan
stated, “As additional child support, each party shall pay 1/2 of all uninsured
medical expenses pursuant to Family Code [section] 4063[, subdivision] (b); and
one-half of all medical insurance payments for the minor children.â€
In
2011, wife filed a petition for an order to show cause for a determination that
husband was in arrears to her for his half of the health care expenses that she
had paid for their children. Wife
alleged husband owed her $8,309.14. In
support of her petition, wife submitted a seven-page home-generated spreadsheet
purporting to summarize the expenses she had paid. At the hearing on wife’s petition, husband
objected to the spreadsheet on multiple grounds, including hearsay. Sustaining in part and overruling in part
husband’s objections, the court admitted the spreadsheet as a summary of wife’s
“position but not as evidence of the truth of the matter.â€
On
July 18, 2011, the court found husband owed wife $1,274.46 in health insurance
premiums and $3,760 for uninsured health care expenses.
DISCUSSION
We
review a trial court’s support order for abuse of discretion. We apply the substantial evidence standard of
review to the court’s factual findings, which requires us to view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. (Edwards
v. Edwards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 136, 141; In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151.)
Husband
and wife’s parenting plan obligated them to share equally the cost of their
children’s “uninsured medical expenses pursuant to Family Code [section]
4063[, subdivision] (b).†Section
4063 establishes the steps a parent who pays uninsured medical expenses must
take to receive reimbursement from the other, nonpaying parent. The statute states the paying parent must
present to the nonpaying parent an “itemized statement of costs†and “proof of
payment†within 30 days of incurring the medical expense. The statute states: “[W]hen either parent accrues or pays costs
pursuant to an order under this section, that parent shall provide the other
parent with an itemized statement of the costs within a reasonable time, but
not more than 30 days after accruing the costs. . . . If a parent has already paid all of these
costs, that parent shall provide proof of payment and a request for reimbursement
of his or her court-ordered share to the other parent.â€
Husband
contends the court misapplied section 4063, subdivision (b) (and, by extension,
the parenting plan which incorporated section 4063). Husband correctly notes that wife did not
submit in support of her petition any of the sorts of documents customarily
deemed “proof of payment,†such as paid invoices, cancelled checks, or
receipts.
title="">[3] At best, wife’s spreadsheet
was arguably an “itemized statement of costs,†but was not proof of payment,
and in any case, the court did not admit the spreadsheet for the truth of its
contents.
title="">[4] Thus, according to husband,
wife offered no admissible evidence of proof of payment.
Husband
appears to misread section 4063. The
statute does not state the parent seeking reimbursement must submit to the
court the “proof of paymentâ€; rather, the parent must provide the nonpaying
parent with proof of payment – the “parent [seeking reimbursement] shall
provide proof of payment . . . to the other parent.†(§ 4063, subd. (b)(1).) Here, wife stated in her declaration in
support of her petition that she ordinarily e-mailed to husband within 30 days
all “bills in arrears of reimbursement†for the children’s health care. The only exception to her e-mailing bills
within 30 days occurred some undetermined number of times when her busyness in
attending to their son’s illnesses prevented her from e-mailing the bills on
time, but untimely delivery of proof of payment does not bar
reimbursement. (
(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 223, 236-237.)
procedure obligate us to draw all reasonable inferences in support of the trial
court’s rulings. (Edwards v. Edwards, supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at
p. 141.) In ordering husband to
reimburse wife, we infer the trial court took wife’s delivery of “bills in
arrears of reimbursement†to mean
wife had paid those bills, otherwise she would not have required
reimbursement. The record thus contains
sufficient evidence that wife provided husband with proof that she had paid
medical expenses for which she was seeking reimbursement from him.
Appellant
husband contends the court wrongfully ordered him to reimburse wife for certain
medical expenses which her current husband’s health insurance may eventually
cover. He asserts the court’s order violates
section 4063, which applies only to uninsured
medical expenses. Appellant husband’s
contention is unavailing. The court
ordered wife to seek insurance coverage through her current husband’s health
insurer, and to split with appellant husband any insurance payments she
receives. Because insurance coverage is
not guaranteed, however, those medical expenses might remain uninsured, thereby
permitting section 4063’s application.
Finally,
appellant husband contends he demonstrated that wife was untruthful to a
non-California court in her current husband’s litigation with his former
wife. Whether or not appellant husband
is correct does not matter on appeal because the trial court’s credibility
determinations bind us. (
62, 76.)
The
trial court’s July 18, 2011 order is affirmed.
RUBIN,
J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P.
J.
SORTINO, J.
further section references are to the Family Code unless otherwise noted.
the entire amount she requested for uninsured medical expenses, but awarded
less than half of what she requested for reimbursement of insurance premiums
because the court found wife’s employer or the employer of her current husband
paid the children’s premiums starting in early 2009.
