Priem v. Priem
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 842
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Veronica Priem and Curtis Priem married in 1999 and have two sons.
- Priem petitioned for dissolution in January 2010; temporary support and attorney-fee orders were issued in February 2010.
- Respondent alleged a long history of Priem’s abusive conduct, including DV incidents and criminal history.
- Priem’s May 2008 misdemeanor domestic violence conviction (battery against a spouse) was by plea of nolo contendere.
- At a November 2010 hearing, the court found a rebuttable presumption under Fam. Code § 4325 and denied temporary spousal support, but awarded fees; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code § 1016 bars use of a nolo contendere plea as predicate under Fam. Code § 4325 | Priem argues 1016 forbids using the plea as basis for the presumption. | Priem contends the plea is admissible to trigger the presumption under § 4325. | 1016 does not bar use for § 4325; presumption may be invoked. |
| Whether a misdemeanor nolo contendere plea within five years can support § 4325 presumption | Priem asserts the plea should not automatically negate support. | Priem is subject to the rebuttable presumption denying spousal support. | Plea may be used to establish the presumptive denial; rebuttable by proof. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered Priem's fee request in light of the presumptions | Priem contends the court did not properly evaluate fees. | Priem argues fees were correctly handled under statutory framework. | Affirmed denial of temporary spousal support and related fees ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Wittgrove, 120 Cal.App.4th 1317 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (court may award support consistent with sections 4320, 4325)
- In re Marriage of Cauley, 138 Cal.App.4th 1100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (domestic violence presumption against support)
- County of Los Angeles v. Civil Service Com., 39 Cal.App.4th 620 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (nolo contendere as control; independent fact-finding required)
- Cartwright v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 16 Cal.3d 762 (Cal. 1976) (nolo contendere may not be used to discipline in administrative actions absent authorization)
- People v. Yartz, 37 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2005) (distinguishes civil actions vs. civil special proceedings for § 1016)
- Cahoon v. Governing Bd. of Ventura Unified School Dist., 171 Cal.App.4th 381 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (legislative history context for nolo contendere implications)