Sorge v. Sorge
202 Cal. App. 4th 626
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sorge appeals after the trial court modified Maryanne Sorge’s child support, sanctioned Joseph Sorge, and awarded pendente lite appellate fees; proceedings involved sanctions for alleged fiduciary breaches and income-disclosure failures.
- Maryanne and Joseph separated in 2000, three children, with a Wyoming divorce decree and a marital settlement agreement that set child and spousal support terms based on Joseph’s pre-separation income; the MSA was registered as a judgment in California in 2005.
- Joseph’s sale of Stratagene (~$100 million) and subsequent investments created substantial post-separation wealth; Maryanne’s 2008 asset disclosure and Joseph’s income declarations were contested by a joint expert (Yip).
- The trial court increased child support from $4,000 to about $18,000 per month, declined to deduct startup losses from the support calculation, and found Joseph had engaged in conduct that frustrated settlement and breached fiduciary duties.
- Sanctions against Joseph totaled $75,000 under §2107 and §271; later, the request for pendente lite appellate fees of $60,000 was granted; a final Wyoming decree framed as a “final and complete settlement” influenced whether fiduciary duties continued.
- The appellate court ultimately reversed the sanctions portion on the fiduciary-duty theory and affirmed other aspects of the orders; the case was remanded for redetermination of sanctions consistent with the correct legal framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in calculating Joseph’s income for guideline child support. | Sorge contends the court should deduct bona fide startup expenses under §4058(a)(2). | Sorge argues the court should reflect earning capacity under §4058(b) and not rely solely on actual income. | No error; court properly used earning capacity so as to impute income and reflect ability to pay. |
| Whether Section 2102(c) imposes a continuing fiduciary duty to disclose post-final judgment. | Maryanne argues fiduciary duties continue until a final resolution of all child-support issues. | Joseph argues duties end after a final decree. | Section 2102(c) does not impose a continuing duty after a final child-support order; sanctions based on that theory reversed. |
| Whether the sanction award rested on an erroneous fiduciary-duty finding and must be reconsidered. | Maryanne seeks sanctions based on alleged disclosure breaches. | Joseph challenges the basis for sanctions tied to post-judgment fiduciary duties. | Because the fiduciary-duty theory was rejected, the sanctions ruling must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration on proper grounds. |
| Whether the attorney-fee awards were proper given relative need and wealth disparity. | Maryanne argues for fees to offset litigation costs given disparity. | Joseph contends no need given Maryanne’s wealth. | Attorneys’ fees upheld as just and reasonable under §2030/2032 considering relative circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Berger, 170 Cal.App.4th 1070 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (earning capacity and obligation not to undermine child support likelihoods)
- In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4th 269 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (consider imputing income and assets to reflect earning capacity)
- In re Marriage of Destein, 91 Cal.App.4th 1385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (broad earning-capacity doctrine including investment assets)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 150 Cal.App.4th 1221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming discretionary imputation of income for child support)
- In re Marriage of Dacumos, 76 Cal.App.4th 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (imputing income to non-income-producing assets)
- Armato, 88 Cal.App.4th 1030 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (discovery framework post-dissolution and need for annual declarations)
- Feldman, 153 Cal.App.4th 1470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (sanctions framework for fiduciary-disclosure breaches in dissolution)