Kuhlman v. Tjoelker
Filed 8/4/06 Kuhlman v. Tjoelker CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THERESA KUHLMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN TJOELKER, Defendant and Appellant. | A110385 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SFL 955548) |
I. INTRODUCTION
The father of a now almost 11-year-old boy (hereafter father) appeals from an order issued under Family Code section 2030[1] (section 2030) requiring him to pay a total of $11,000 in legal and expert witness fees to the mother of their son (hereafter mother) so as to permit her to continue litigating issues relating to the custody of and her visitation with the son. Because we find the lower court erred by, among other things, failing to give collateral estoppel effect to previous findings by another judge of the same court regarding mother's earning capacity, we reverse.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is the second time this extended, and obviously very bitter, child custody dispute has been before us. On November 2, 2005, we issued our opinion in Kuhlman v. Tjoelker (Nov. 2, 2005, A106241) [nonpub. opn.] (Kuhlman I), in which we affirmed the trial court's denial of mother's motion to set aside part of a 2000 judgment entered by another judge of the same court. By way of introduction to what follows, we quote in part from the â€
