Marriage of Kelly
Petitioner challenges a judgment entered after a partial retrial of her divorce case. The retrial occurred after the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, reversed the portion of the initial judgment awarding Epstein credits to respondent James Kelly, and remanded for modification of the judgment not inconsistent with [its] opinion. (In re Marriage of Kelly (May 22, 2001, D037277) [nonpub. opn.], pp. 17-18 (Kelly I).) Sharon[2]contends the trial court erred in conducting a retrial on the amount of Epstein credits because the appellate opinion required the trial court to simply strike the Epstein credit award from the initial judgment. Sharon alternatively contends the trial court erred in limiting the retrial to the amount of the Epstein credits and precluding her from challenging Jamess entitlement to these credits. Sharon also contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding her only $7,000 in attorney fees because her attorneys declaration documented she expended $120,000 in total fees. In a cross-appeal, James also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the fee award.
Court conclude the trial court did not err in granting a retrial on the amount of the Epstein credits. The appellate opinion did not direct the trial court to modify the previous judgment by striking the Epstein credits. Nor did the opinion specify the procedural manner in which that portion of the judgment was to be modified. The law of the case doctrine did not bar retrial because Sharon stipulated to the admission of an expert report on the amount of Epstein credits due James, thus justifying a retrial based on new and additional evidence.
Court also reject Sharons contention the trial court erred in limiting the new trial to the amount of the Epstein credits. The appellate opinion reversed the Epstein credit award solely because substantial evidence did not support the calculation of the award, and expressly affirmed all other aspects of the first judgment, including the trial courts determination James was entitled to Epstein credits. Finally, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the attorney fee award to Sharon. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on Marriage of Kelly