In re Marriage of Stich

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Dick

    15 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 129 times
    Holding that "nonimmigrant status does not preclude a finding of residence under California law for purposes of obtaining a dissolution of marriage"

    Ability to pay encompasses far more than the income of the spouse from whom temporary support is sought; investments and other assets may be used for both temporary spousal support and attorney fees pendente lite. ( Rosenthal v. Rosenthal (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 289, 299 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 186]; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 74 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 919].) (10a) In the instant case, the trial court made the specific and unequivocal finding that husband "has the ability to pay" based on the "extensive assets and nonsalary income at his disposal" which "have been placed by him in the control of others acting for his benefit [and] have a value in excess of $20,000,000."

  2. Sprague v. Kekoa

    No. A122018 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Generally, the amount should reflect what is necessary to redress the ‘undue burden’ a frivolous appeal imposes on the legal system and respondent and to deter the same type of conduct in the future.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs, supra, ¶ 11:135, p. 11-55, citing Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 33; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 78; Hersch v. Citizens Savings & Loan Assn, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1013.) The factors that may be considered in setting the amount of sanctions include the appellant’s net worth (Bank of California v. Varakin, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at p. 1640; In re Marriage of Stich, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d at p. 78) the need for “discourage[ment of] like conduct in the future” (Pierotti v. Torian, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 34-35), and the lack of any discernible deterrent effect of any previous sanction order (Papadakis v. Zelis, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1150).

  3. In re Marriage of Gray

    204 Cal.App.3d 1239 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 16 times
    Noting that when two courts from two jurisdictions have concurrent jurisdiction with respect to an in rem proceeding, the rule giving priority is generally stated in terms of comity, and thus is a rule of discretionary policy, and further noting that because husband's request for divorce in the District of Columbia was "floating in a kind of legal limbo," under principles of comity California had jurisdiction to act on his petition for dissolution, even though he consented to the reservation of all property issues to the District of Columbia court

    Thus, Wife's D.C. action for separate maintenance does not operate as a bar to Husband's attempt to obtain a dissolution of marital status in this state. Wife cites numerous cases in support of her argument that Husband is making an impermissible collateral attack on the decree and jurisdiction of the D.C. court. ( Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948) 334 U.S. 343 [92 L.Ed. 1429, 68 S.Ct. 1087, 1 A.L.R.2d 1355]; Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber (5th Cir. 1982) 681 F.2d 1015; Peery v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1085 [ 219 Cal.Rptr. 882]; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 919]; and Craig v. Superior Court (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 675 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 692].) To the extent they do not actually support Husband's petition for dissolution of marriage, the cases cited by Wife are all concerned with the res judicata effect of a jurisdictional finding of domicile in a divorce action.

  4. Hedman v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC

    No. C079416 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 4, 2016)

    (Cf. Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1558-1559; Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 310-313; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75-78.) There is no indication in the record that either Hedman has any legal background or that they do not in good faith believe the merits of their case.

  5. Osterland v. Bridge

    F066333 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2014)

    (Cf. Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1559; Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 310-313; In re Marriage of Stich (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75-78.)

  6. Ham v. Greene

    2000 Ct. Sup. 7183 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    See McCarthy v. Warden, 213 Conn. 289, 293, 567 A.2d 1187 (1989) (judicial notice taken of file in federal court); see also Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So.2d 529, 548 (Miss. 1992); Matter of Vineland Chemical Co., 243 N.J. Super. 285, 579 A.2d 343, 360 n. 5 (App.Div. 1990), cert. denied, 127 N.J. 323, 604 A.2d 598 (1990); In re Marriage of Stich, 169 Cal.App.3d 64, 75, 214 Cal.Rptr. 919, 929 (1985), review denied, appeal dismissed, cert. denied, Stich v. Stich, 479 U.S. 946, 107 S.Ct. 428, 93 L.Ed.2d 379 (1986), reh. den. 479 U.S. 1047, 107 S.Ct. 913, 93 L.Ed.2d 862 (1987); Matter of Ronwin, 139 Ariz. 576, 680 P.2d 107, 111 n. 4 (1989), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977, 104 S.Ct. 413, 78 L.Ed.2d 351 (1983); Sapp v. Wong, 654 P.2d 883, 885 n. 3 (1982). Of course, since court ordinarily adjourns at 5:00 P.M., these two matters are not necessarily inconsistent.