Marriage of Furie
B269972
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Parents (Kelly and Russell Furie) entered a stipulated judgment providing joint legal custody, father to pay $1,454/month child support and half of uninsured medical expenses, and giving father the family home while allowing mother and children to remain there.
- Post-judgment disputes: father defaulted on the home mortgage, repeatedly alleged mother converted assets of KMF Investments (KMF), transferred assets into a trust (Douglas Mae Trust), and sought multiple reductions of child support over several years.
- Trial court increased child support in 2012, ordered turnover of an RKF promissory note to mother in 2013, and sanctioned father for litigation conduct; father later filed bankruptcy and received a discharge on some claims but the family court support awards were found non-dischargeable in adversary proceedings.
- After remand and further proceedings, father sought (in 2015) to vacate/reconsider the 2013 turnover order and again to reduce support; mother sought sole authority over the children’s orthodontic care and reimbursement for uninsured orthodontic expenses.
- The trial court (Dec. 30, 2015) refused to vacate/reconsider the 2013 order, found father controls the Trust (and Trust reachable under Probate Code for support), awarded mother sole authority over orthodontic care, ordered father to pay half of uninsured orthodontic costs, and denied a reduction in child support; father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was required to issue a written statement of decision under Fam. Code § 3654 | Section 3654 required a written statement; oral statement insufficient | Trial court properly issued an oral statement under Code Civ. Proc. § 632; order did not modify/terminate support covered by § 3654 | Court affirmed: oral statement satisfied requirements; § 3654 not triggered here |
| Whether father must pay half of uninsured orthodontic expenses and whether mother should have sole authority over orthodontic care | Father argued trial court abused discretion; costs not uninsured or outside stipulated judgment | Stipulated judgment obligates father to pay half of uninsured medical/orthodontic costs; mother sought authority for care decisions | Affirmed: substantial evidence that care was uninsured; mother given sole authority over orthodontic care under best-interests standard and father ordered to pay half |
| Whether trial court erred in finding father controls the Trust and allowing Trust to be reached for support | Father claimed bankruptcy court found he did not control the Trust and discharge precludes relitigation; spendthrift/irrevocability shields Trust | Bankruptcy record did not adjudicate control; Probate Code §§15304–15305 permit reaching settlor-beneficiary trust for support despite spendthrift clause | Affirmed: no collateral estoppel; trial court properly found Trust reachable and considered trust in support determination |
| Whether trial court should have vacated/reconsidered the March 18, 2013 turnover order or held new hearing on KMF conversion allegations | Father sought vacatur/reconsideration based on bankruptcy rulings and requested new hearing on KMF conversion | Motion untimely; issue had been repeatedly litigated and not a changed circumstance for modification of support | Affirmed: motion untimely and jurisdictional bars applied; KMF allegations already litigated and not a basis to reopen support orders |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Sellers, 110 Cal.App.4th 1007 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpretation of Family Code § 3654 and statement of decision requirements)
- In re Marriage of Arceneaux, 51 Cal.3d 1130 (Cal. 1990) (presumption of correctness and implied findings; Code Civ. Proc. § 634 implications)
- In re Marriage of Lucio, 161 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard for custody/parenting modifications and best-interests framework)
- Ventura County Dep’t of Child Support Servs. v. Brown, 117 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reachability of trust assets for support obligations)
- Oliverez v. (cited in opinion), 238 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reconsideration by different judge; Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 context)
- In re Adeeb, 787 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir.) (principles on construing § 727 denial of discharge in bankruptcy)
- In re Retz, 606 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.) (elements and intent standards for denial of bankruptcy discharge under § 727)