Opinion
C084426
07-23-2018
In re the Marriage of MARK and JULIE CANTRELL. JULIE CANTRELL, Respondent, v. MARK CANTRELL, Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SDR0027885)
Mark Cantrell (father) appeals from a postjudgment order in which, among other things, the trial court ordered him to pay $12,500 to Julie Cantrell (mother) for attorney's fees, found he failed to comply with a court order to provide health insurance for the parties' son Nathan, and denied father's request that mother pay $8,129.32 in medical bills, half of the total bills incurred by Nathan.
On appeal, father contends (1) the trial court erred in finding he did not provide the required health insurance, (2) his failure to timely notify mother of the bills was excusable, and (3) mother is not entitled to an attorney's fee award. We conclude father's contentions lack merit and affirm the orders of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
In October 2014, the trial court ordered father to pay $912 each month to mother for child support. Included in that order was an order that father "provide and maintain health insurance coverage for the children if available at no or reasonable costs . . . ." The trial court further ordered that "[e]ach parent shall pay 1/2 of any uninsured health care costs for the minor children . . . pursuant to the Notice of Rights and Responsibilities attached." Attached to the trial court's order was the form Notice of Rights and Responsibilities (Health-Care Costs and Reimbursement Procedures), also known as form FL-192 (Judicial Council Forms).
Form FL-192 includes the following language: "You must give the other parent an itemized statement of the charges that have been billed for any health-care costs not paid by insurance. You must give this statement to the other parent within a reasonable time, but no more than 30 days after those costs were given to you." (Form FL-192)
On June 10, 2016, among other things, the trial court ordered father to pay to mother $2,500 for her attorney's fees.
On June 30, 2016, the parties appeared before a court commissioner on father's motion " 'to Enforce Court Orders.' " The commissioner found "the reasonable and necessary uninsured health care expenses for Nathan were $16,259.63." The commissioner further found credible father's explanation for the delay in transmitting the bills to mother, given the highly contentious nature of the case, and found "an injustice would be worked between the parties if Mother were not required to pay her half share of these reasonable and necessary expenses."
The commissioner recommended "an order be entered directing Mother to pay to Father $8,12982 [sic] as and for her reasonable and necessary health care expenses for Nathan through April 27, 2016." Mother objected to the commissioner's recommendation and on January 27, 2017, the parties appeared before the trial court for a long-cause hearing.
At the long-cause hearing, mother testified that she had sole legal custody of the parties' daughter Caitlin and father had sole legal custody of Nathan. Mother provided health insurance for Caitlin through Medi-Cal and never asked father to reimburse her for Caitlin's unreimbursed medical expenses. Mother also testified that Nathan received medical treatment in January, March, and May 2015 but she did not know he was treated until March 2016. She never received a bill from father for any of the medical treatment. According to mother, father sold health insurance during the parties' marriage and sold health insurance coverage to the family.
Mother was asked if father knew how to contact her; she testified that her e-mail address and phone number had not changed since she and father were married. She acknowledged not giving father her physical address. Mother also testified that, at the time of the hearing, she had paid $13,000 in attorney's fees and her only income was from unemployment benefits, totaling $450 a week.
Mother's trial counsel represented to the trial court that her attorney's fees and costs totaled "about $35,000." Counsel explained this was "a complicated case," they had been to court numerous times, there were numerous discovery issues, and they were required to file numerous "technical briefs." Mother had already paid him $12,500 and father paid the $2,500 he was ordered to pay; as a result, trial counsel was still owed approximately $20,000.
Father also testified at the hearing. He admitted mother had the same phone number for about three years, he knew the number, and service to that number had never been interrupted. Father claimed he did not recognize e-mails he sent to mother in July 2014, or a text exchange between him and mother in May 2014.
When asked about health insurance coverage for Nathan, father testified he currently had Nathan covered under Kaiser health insurance. In 2015, however, father was with Medi-Share and he testified regarding his application for Medi-Share. The application asked, "Do you understand that Medi-Share is not insurance or an insurance policy?" Father answered, "yes." Father also remembered going to the Medi-Share website and seeing that it was not insurance.
Medi-Share was further described in trial exhibit 19: "Members in a Health Care Sharing Ministry such as Medi-Share are exempt from the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act . . . . Medi-Share is not insurance. It is a not-for-profit ministry and is not guaranteed in any way."
Father acknowledged he was asking mother to pay half of the medical bills incurred by Nathan in January, March, and May 2015. He estimated the total amount was "[a]pproximately $20,000" and said Medi-Share paid "approximately 2,000 to $5,000," though he had no proof they paid anything. Father further testified that Medi-Share negotiated the total amount down so the balance due was $16,259; he paid $500 toward the bills and was asking mother to pay $8,129.
Father believed that by participating in Medi-Share, he satisfied his obligation to provide Nathan with health insurance. He testified that he did not give mother notice of Nathan's medical bills until March 2016. The delay, he explained, was because he was negotiating the bills and they were not final until February or March 2016; he was still negotiating some of the bills.
In addition, father explained that the delay in reporting the bills to mother was also because, in his opinion, there had been no effective way to communicate with mother from April 2014 until February 2016 without the risk of a restraining order or police intervention. He said mother relocated her residence twice and did not provide him with an address for delivery of documents. He testified it was not possible to deliver the bills to mother until her attorney contacted him in March 2016. But he said he had no evidence mother threatened him with a restraining order if he contacted her. Father noted mother never contacted him to find out what health insurance he was providing for Nathan.
The trial court heard closing argument from both parties and on January 27, 2017, issued its written decision. It denied father's request to order mother to pay half of Nathan's medical bills. The trial court found father "did not provide medical insurance for the care of his son and failed to give the required 30-day notice to [mother] of the lack of insurance, and prevented [mother] from seeking to insure against medical coverage for her son." The trial court also ordered father to pay to mother $12,500 in attorney fees under Family Code section 2030 and denied mother's request for Family Code section 271 sanctions.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. --------
DISCUSSION
Father contends the trial court erred in finding he failed to provide medical insurance for Nathan, as previously ordered by the court. We find no error. We need look no further than trial exhibit 19 to conclude he failed to meet his obligation. In trial exhibit 19, Medi-Share unequivocally and repeatedly proclaims that it is not insurance - - it is a health care sharing ministry. Moreover, father testified that when he applied to participate in Medi-Share he had to acknowledge that he knew Medi-Share was not health insurance and the Medi-Share website specifically said Medi-Share was not health insurance.
In addition, health insurance coverage is defined in the Family Code as "Provision for the delivery of health care services by a fee for service, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, or any other type of health care delivery system under which medical services could be provided to a dependent child of an absent parent." (§ 3750, subd. (b).) Father produced no evidence that Medi-Share meets any of these criteria. There also is no evidence father ever submitted claims to Medi-Share or that Medi-Share paid any of his claims, as would happen with health insurance.
Father also asks this court to reverse the trial court's order denying his request that mother pay half of Nathan's uninsured medical bills. Reviewing the trial court's order for abuse of discretion (See In re Marriage of Rothrock (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 223, 236-237; see also In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 283), we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Section 4063, subdivision (b) provides that "when either parent accrues or pays costs pursuant to an order under this section, that parent shall provide the other parent with an itemized statement of the costs within a reasonable time, but not more than 30 days after accruing the costs." (§ 4063, subd. (b).) The section "does not prohibit a party from seeking reimbursement in case of a failure to timely present an itemization of costs. Rather, section 4063, subdivision (c) allows the court to award filing costs and reasonable attorney fees 'if it finds that either party acted without reasonable cause.' " (In re Marriage of Rothrock, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th pp. 236-237.)
The uninsured medical costs sought by father accrued in January, March, and May 2015 and father did not report the costs to mother until March 2016. Form FL-192 was incorporated into the trial court's order and required father to present an itemized statement of Nathan's medical bills "within a reasonable time, but no later than 30 days." Father failed to comply with that order.
Additionally, the trial court implicitly found father's explanation for the delay either was not credible or was not reasonable. "We do not substitute our judgment for the credibility determinations of the trial court." (People v. Oldham (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) On this record, we also conclude the trial court acted well within its discretion in determining that father's explanation was not reasonable. Father offered no evidence that mother threatened police intervention if he contacted her regarding their son's medical bills. That father may or may not have been negotiating the bills did not preclude him from contacting her regarding their current amount. Indeed, according to father's own testimony, he was still negotiating bills at the time of trial.
Finally, father contends the trial court's order for attorney's fees was not justified. Father does not cite any authority to support this claim, and therefore it is forfeited. (See Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; see Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655-656 [appellant is required to present legal authority in support of each issue raised, along with citations to the record, otherwise the issue is forfeited]; see also Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113 [it is appellant's burden to support claims of error with citation to legal authority]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C).)
DISPOSITION
The orders of the trial court are affirmed. Costs are awarded to mother Julie Cantrell. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
ROBIE, Acting P. J. /S/_________
HOCH, J.