Cora v. Cora

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara No. 15FL02036. Thomas P. Anderle, Judge

Law Offices of Donald L. Briggs, Amy Shiffman Hendel, and Donald L. Briggs for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Stephanie J. Finelli, Stephanie J. Finelli; Drury Pullen, Susanna V. Pullen for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GILBERT, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order appointing a receiver to collect child and spousal support and attorney fees. We affirm.

FACTS

Catherine Cora is a celebrity chef with an interest in a number of businesses. She was married to Jennifer Cora until their marriage was dissolved in February 2017. They have four children of the marriage, all of whom were minors at the time of the dissolution. While Catherine worked outside of the home, Jennifer stayed home with the children.

At the time of the dissolution, Catherine had a monthly gross income of $52, 305. Jennifer has serious physical and

emotional limitations and had been out of the workforce for a long time. The trial court declined to impute income to her.

The trial court ordered Catherine to pay $8, 118 monthly child support and $9, 500 monthly spousal support. The court also ordered Catherine to pay Jennifer's attorney $440, 000.

Jennifer's First Motion for Appointment of Receiver

In May 2017, Jennifer made a motion for the appointment of a receiver. She stated that the trial court's order to pay $440, 000 in attorney fees remains wholly unsatisfied, and that Catherine's diverse financial interests make the appointment of a receiver a reasonable remedy.

The trial court made a tentative ruling granting the motion. But at Catherine's request, the court continued the matter to give her time to make the payment. Catherine made the payment and no receiver was appointed.

Catherine's Motion to Modify Support

In March 2020, Catherine made a motion to modify both child and spousal support. She claimed financial losses in the restaurant business due to the COVID pandemic made it impossible for her to meet her support obligations.

Catherine refused to provide the documents Jennifer's accountant needed to make an analysis of Catherine's finances. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Catherine failed to carry her burden of proof.

Instant Motion to Appoint a Receiver

In August 2020, Jennifer made the instant motion to appoint a receiver to collect delinquent support payments and attorney fees. Jennifer declared that as of April 1, 2020, Catherine had unilaterally reduced her $8, 118 monthly payment for child support to $4, 000 per month and stopped paying $9, 500

in spousal support. The delinquent payments are $20, 590 in child support, $47, 500 in spousal support, and $50, 000 in attorney fees.

Jennifer declared that Catherine has substantial assets she is not disclosing to the court. She listed 36 separate sources of income. Jennifer declared that due to Catherine's experience in obfuscating income and assets, it will not be enough to try to levy her bank accounts. The appointment of a receiver is necessary.

Catherine's Response

In opposition to the motion, Catherine declared that due to the COVID pandemic, her estate has collapsed. She claimed she is earning only $1, 800 per month in unemployment benefits and nominal income from a recent inheritance.

Catherine declared that she has provided all her financial information with documents to Jennifer and her accountant.

Catherine requested that she not be required to open her businesses to a receiver. She stated she currently employs a financial advisor and a CPA. She claimed she is on the brink of bankruptcy.

Jennifer's Reply

Jennifer replied that Catherine continues to live lavishly in two homes: one in Santa Barbara and the other in Beverly Hills. Catherine continues to hide assets and pay high-price divorce lawyers and an accountant instead of paying support. Jennifer declared that other collection efforts, including a bank levy and contempt proceedings, had not been successful.

Ruling

In ordering the appointment of a receiver, the trial court found: Catherine's income and expense declaration does not "fill in the blanks" required to show her earnings and assets. Much of

the litigation has been about Catherine not paying the support ordered. If Catherine had her way, her support obligations would be held hostage to her business challenges, her business opportunities, and her threat of filing for bankruptcy. The court's support orders would be treated as any other business obligation. Catherine's assertion that Jennifer has not tried other methods of collection is incorrect.

DISCUSSION

I Appointment of Receiver is Appropriate

Catherine contends the trial court erred in appointing a receiver.

Family Code section 290 provides, in part, "A judgment or order made or entered pursuant to this code may be enforced by the court by . . . the appointment of a receiver . . . ." We review the order appointing a receiver for an abuse of discretion. (City and County of San Francisco v. Daley (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 734, 744.)

Catherine relies on Medipro Medical Staffing LLC v. Certified Nursing Registry, Inc. (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 622 (Medipro). There the trial court appointed a receiver pursuant to the Enforcement of Judgments Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et seq.^[1]) to enforce an ordinary civil judgment. The court held that the trial court abuses its discretion "if it appoints a receiver to aid in the collection of a money judgment where the record contains no evidence that the judgment debtors had obfuscated or frustrated the creditor's collection efforts and no evidence that

less intrusive collection methods were inadequate or ineffective." (Medipro, at pp. 624-625.)

Medipro is distinguishable. First, we are not concerned here with an ordinary money judgment. We are concerned with an order for spousal and child support. Support orders have a special place in the law. As our Supreme Court stated in Bruton v. Tearle (1936) 7 Cal.2d 48, 58: "If permanent alimony be regarded as a part of the husband's estate and as a portion of his current income and earnings, then the wife under her alimony judgment has an interest in the husband's earnings both those which have accrued and those which will fall due in the future. In such a case there can be no legal objection to an order of court appointing a receiver for the purpose of securing to the wife her interest in those earnings. To deny her that right would permit the husband, as he has done in the present case, to receive his salary or other income in full and make away with it before the wife by any legal process could claim any portion of it. By the proceeding resorted to in the instant case the court simply intercepts the husband's income before it reaches him and devotes it to the purposes to which the law has subjected it. Unless the court has the power to make and execute such an order, the interest of the wife in her husband's estate would be in many instances, as it would be...