Hofer v. Hofer
208 Cal. App. 4th 454
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- John M. and Lisa M. Hofer, married in 1991, have two minor children; John petitioned for dissolution on January 9, 2009.
- Lisa did not work during the marriage; John controls family-business entities with substantial income/assets; Lisa cannot determine the extent of assets or income.
- Lisa issued discovery demands; John gave insufficient responses to three requests; Lisa moved to compel and the court sanctioned him.
- A discovery referee found John refused to appear for deposition and failed to produce documents; sanctions were imposed and a further order contemplated preclusion.
- Lisa sought attorney fees under Family Code § 2030; the trial court found John has resources to pay and awarded Lisa $200,000 as a contribution to fees; John substantially funded his own and Lisa’s counsel’s fees but withheld comprehensive disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disentitlement governs appeal when discovery is willfully obstructed. | Hofer | Hofer failed to disclose; may still appeal | Appeal dismissed due to disentitlement. |
| Whether the fee award was proper given lack of full disclosure of finances. | Hofer claims Mosley requires disclosure; court erred | Hofer’s resources shown; court has discretion | Fee award affirmed. |
| Whether ordering payment from any property is permissible under §2032(c). | Hofer argues misuse of discretion | Court has broad discretion to order payment from community or separate property | Court’s broad discretion upheld. |
| Whether formal contempt judgment is required to sustain appellate relief under disentitlement. | Hofer argues no contempt judgment needed | Disentitlement based on timely disobedience to orders sufficient | Disentitlement applies without formal contempt judgment. |
| Whether the court’s reliance on inferred income and ongoing discovery disputes undermines the order. | Mosley requires accurate disclosure | Discovery disputes limit knowledge but do not invalidate award | Order sustained despite incomplete disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Mosley, 165 Cal.App.4th 1375 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (discretionary fee awards require consideration of financial ability and circumstances)
- Say & Say v. Castellano, 22 Cal.App.4th 88 (Cal. App. 1994) (disentitlement operates to stay or dismiss an appeal for noncompliance)
- Stone v. Bach, 80 Cal.App.3d 442 (Cal. App. 1978) (disentitlement may apply even without a formal contempt judgment)
- MacPherson v. MacPherson, 13 Cal.2d 271 (Cal. 1939) (recognizes court-driven enforcement as justified under disobedience of orders)