Marriage of Henry
Filed 3/16/06 Marriage of Henry CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re Marriage of DANIEL S. and MARCIA HENRY. | |
| DANIEL S. HENRY, Appellant, v. MARCIA HENRY, Respondent. | G035104 (Super. Ct. No. 02D000786) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nancy A. Pollard, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Doeringer and Jeffrey W. Doeringer for Appellant.
Law Offices of Marjorie G. Fuller, Marjorie G. Fuller; Philip G. Seastrom & Associates and Philip G. Seastrom for Respondent.
* * *
Introduction
At the end of a lengthy and contentious dissolution proceeding between Daniel S. Henry and Marcia Henry, the trial court entered a judgment on the reserved issue of attorney fees, and another judgment on the reserved issues of reimbursements, credits, and property division. (We will refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion, and intend no disrespect.) Daniel appeals from both judgments.
With respect to the judgment on attorney fees, Daniel argues the trial court committed reversible error by failing to issue a statement of decision. Even if a statement of decision was available for what was essentially a motion for attorney fees, Daniel's request for a statement of decision lacked the specificity required by Code of Civil Procedure section 632 and California Rules of Court, rule 232.
Daniel also argues the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to Marcia's attorneys without making factual findings of Daniel's ability to pay under Family Code section 270, and by failing to consider the factors under section 2032 before making its award. (All further statutory references are to the Family Code, unless otherwise noted.) Although factual findings were not required, we conclude the trial court's award of attorney fees does not reflect an exercise of discretion and the required consideration of the statutory factors in the exercise of that discretion. Therefore, we reverse the judgment on the reserved issue of attorney fees. Because of the unusual circumstances of this case, we remand the issue for the limited purpose of permitting the trial court to enter an order showing the court exercised its discretion, considered the relevant statutory factors, and explained the basis for and calculation of attorney fees.
With respect to the judgment on reimbursements, credits, and the division of property, Daniel argues the special master did not have jurisdiction to make an advisory decision on credits and charges because those were legal, not factual, issues. We find no support for this argument. By actively participating in proceedings before the special master over the course of several days, without once objecting to the special master's jurisdiction, Daniel has waived this issue.
Finally, Daniel argues the trial court failed to independently consider the special master's recommendations before adopting them as the decision of the court. A hearing was not required before the court could accept the special master's recommendations, and the language of the judgment supports the conclusion the court independently considered those recommendations. We therefore affirm the judgment on the reserved issues of reimbursements, credits, and division of property.
Statement of Facts
In January 2002, Daniel filed a petition for dissolution of his 19‑year marriage to Marcia. The couple had two minor children. Judgment of dissolution was entered on January 21, 2003, with jurisdiction over all issues other than status reserved. On June 25, 2003, the parties stipulated to judgment on various bifurcated issues of property distribution. On October 23, 2003, the parties stipulated that Daniel's gross monthly employment income was $12,008, and Marcia's was $6,292.
On June 30, 2004, the parties stipulated to judgment on most of the remaining issues. The stipulated judgment provided that a special master would resolve the remaining issues of reimbursements, credits, division of property, furniture, and effects. The stipulated judgment also provided the following, with respect to attorney fees: â€
