In re Marriage of LaMoure

38 Citing cases

  1. County of Santa Clara v. Rucker

    No. H038489 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2014)

    Appellant asserts that the federal government "is not a collection agenc[y] for private individuals who[] have allowed a child support judgment to transition into a private money judgment for personal benefit." Appellant cites In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 819 (LaMoure) and sections of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. §§ 651, et seq.) in support of his position. As framed, appellant's contention presents a legal question that we review de novo. (Holmes v. Jones (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 882, 888 [a trial court's interpretation of statutes and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo].)

  2. In re Marriage of Raffo

    A137977, A138025 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2013)

    The financial institutions are required to determine if there is a match with their own account holders. Upon receiving a notice or order to withhold issued by the State DCSS, financial institutions are required to notify the obligor of the notice or order, and withhold from the obligor’s accounts the amount of support arrears stated in the notice or order. (§§ 17453, 17454.)” (In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 (LaMoure).) “Before the funds are transmitted to the State DCSS, the obligor may file with the local DCSS a claim of exemption based on financial hardship.

  3. Raffo v. Raffo (In re Raffo)

    No. A137977 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2013)

    The financial institutions are required to determine if there is a match with their own account holders. Upon receiving a notice or order to withhold issued by the State DCSS, financial institutions are required to notify the obligor of the notice or order, and withhold from the obligor's accounts the amount of support arrears stated in the notice or order. (§§ 17453, 17454.)" (In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 (LaMoure).) "Before the funds are transmitted to the State DCSS, the obligor may file with the local DCSS a claim of exemption based on financial hardship.

  4. Nguyen v. Van (In re Marriage of Nguyen)

    No. H044902 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 28, 2021)

    We do not disturb the trial court's exercise of discretion unless we determine the trial court has exceeded the bounds of reason and issued an order that no judicial officer would make under the same circumstances. (In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 829 (LaMoure).) Van seemingly contends this court must review the trial court's orders de novo.

  5. Cnty. of L.A. Child Support Servs. Dep't v. Watson

    42 Cal.App.5th 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In 1999, the Legislature enacted a new statutory scheme that created a Department of Child Support Services within the California Health and Human Services Agency, to establish, collect, and distribute child support. [Citations.] The pertinent Welfare and Institutions Code sections were repealed and replaced with Family Code sections 17400, 17402, 17404, 17406, and 17415." ( Palla , at p. 422, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 fn.omitted; see In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 823, fn. 5, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ["Title IV-D ‘imposes a series of obligations on the states, including the requirement that the state provide services related to the enforcement of child support obligations.’ "].

  6. San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. G.H. (In re I.H.)

    No. E078454 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 31, 2022)

    We question whether we can take judicial notice of information from Wikipedia. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (h) [court can take judicial notice of "[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy"]; In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 826 ["We do not consider Wikipedia a sufficiently reliable source."].

  7. Byron v. McCray

    No. B306599 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2022)

    trial court. (See Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 374, 380-381 ["In the absence of prejudice, the trial court has broad discretion in allowing relief on grounds of inadvertence from a failure to timely file a cost bill"; determining the court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion for permission to file a late memorandum of costs-a motion that had been brought after the statutory deadline-where there was "no showing of prejudice"]; Robinson, at p. 328 ["The fact that there were procedural irregularities provides no basis for invalidating the award where [appellant] makes no attempt to show prejudice"; "we see . . . no reason to grant [appellant] windfall protection from attorney's fees exposure"]; see also McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 82, fn. 17 ["we need not address claims not properly addressed in the opening brief"]; In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 817 [appellant forfeited argument mentioned in reply brief but not raised in opening brief].) 19

  8. Vines v. O'Reilly Auto Enters.

    74 Cal.App.5th 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 17 times

    Although in his reply brief Vines asserts the trial court's reason for reducing Scardigli's hourly rate—Scardigli requested the same hourly rate as attorneys with 20 more years of employment litigation experience—was insufficient to warrant the reduction, this additional argument was made too late to be considered. (See, e.g., McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 82, fn. 17, 285 Cal.Rptr.3d 175 ["we need not address claims not properly addressed in the opening brief"]; In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 817, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [appellant forfeited argument mentioned in reply brief but not raised in opening brief]; Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 125, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 6 ["an appellant's failure to discuss an issue in its opening brief forfeits the issue on appeal"].) Because Vines forfeited the issue, the trial court's reductions (to Vines's requested lodestar amount of $647,745) in the amount of $129,583.23 for specific billing entries—which were subtracted before the court applied the erroneous additional 75 percent reduction—remain undisturbed on remand.

  9. Gobron v. Pesheva

    No. B294271 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2021)

    Because father concedes trial courts have discretion to award child support retroactive to the date a request to modify support is filed, for purposes of this opinion we will use the term "retroactive support" to refer only to support that predates a motion to modify support. This section implements federal law, which requires each state to "have in effect laws requiring" that each installment of child support "is (on and after the date it is due)—[¶] (A) a judgment by operation of law, with the full force, effect, and attributes of a judgment of the State, including the ability to be enforced, [¶] (B) entitled as a judgment to full faith and credit in such State and in any other State, and [¶] (C) not subject to retroactive modification by such State or by any other State; [¶] except that [a state] may permit modification with respect to any period during which there is pending a petition for modification . . . ." (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(B)), italics added; see In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 818.) Plainly, a temporary suspension of child support is not a "judgment" which may be accorded "full faith and credit."

  10. J.K. v. M.H. (In re Marriage of J.K.)

    No. D075901 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2020)

    The levy is founded on an existing support order, overdue support, and the existence of an order by operation of law requiring payment of support arrears." (In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 819.) Father makes various claims of incompetence and malfeasance against his former attorneys. Any claims Father may want to assert against his former attorneys are not at issue in this appeal, which concerns his child support obligations and arrears.