Opinion
H051393
04-25-2024
In re the Marriage of AARON LONGINOTTI and CLAUDIA KARPALA. v. CLAUDIA KARPALA, Respondent. AARON LONGINOTTI, Appellant,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 20FL002516)
Greenwood, P. J.
In 2022, the trial court ordered appellant Aaron Longinotti to pay a total of $73,000 in need-based attorney fees to respondent Claudia Karpala. This court affirmed that order in a nonpublished opinion. (In re Marriage of Longinotti & Karpala (Dec. 14, 2022, H049986) (Longinotti & Karpala).) In 2023, Longinotti asked the trial court to modify its prior attorney fees award and find that he satisfied his obligation by paying $53,000 towards the fees incurred by Karpala's trial counsel, and $3,000 towards the fees advanced to an appellate attorney. The trial court denied Longinotti's request and ordered him to pay the remaining $17,000 plus interest at the legal rate. We affirm the trial court's order.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In December 2021, the trial court granted Karpala's request to move with the parties' child to Germany. Longinotti filed a petition for writ of mandate in this court, which we denied as moot after the trial court complied with an alternative writ. Longinotti then filed an appeal from the order. (Longinotti & Karpala, supra, H049986, at pp. 2-3.)
In her March 2022 attorney fees request, Karpala asked the trial court to order Longinotti to pay $135,000, including $115,000 for her trial attorney, and $20,000 to retain an appellate attorney. At the time, she owed her trial attorney $52,103.20. She stated to the trial court that she made the request "based on the significant and ongoing cost of litigation in this matter," noting that Longinotti had already filed "two appeals ...." Karpala's attorney declared that Karpala was seeking a fee award so that Karpala could "have continued representation in her family law case and/or fees for [Karpala] to have representation in the TWO appellate cases that [Longinotti] has filed and are now pending." The request included "past fees incurred and anticipated future fees ...."
Longinotti's response to Karpala's attorney fees request focused on her claim that there existed a disparity in the parties' access to legal representation. He maintained that some of the fees both he and Karpala incurred in the litigation were not necessary due to Karpala's actions. He did not challenge her claim that she had incurred fees in the past and anticipated incurring additional fees in the future.
In its written order granting the attorney fees request, the trial court found that "Mother reports she has paid $102,368 and owes $53,102 plus needs a retainer for an appellate attorney. Mother clearly has the need to pay for an appellate attorney and the bill with [her trial attorney's law office]." It issued the following order: "Father shall pay Mother $20,000 within 15 days of 3/30/2022 such that the payment is due 4/14/2022. Father shall pay [the trial attorney's office] $53,000 within 60 days of 3/30/2022 such that it is due May 30, 2022." The court did not specify how Karpala had to use the $20,000 it ordered Longinotti to pay directly to her. Longinotti appealed the attorney fees order, which we affirmed in Longinotti & Karpala, supra, H049986.
Longinotti dismissed his appeal from the December 2021 custody order in May 2022. After this court affirmed the attorney fees order, he paid the $53,000 he owed to Karpala's trial attorney, and $3,000 of the $20,000 he was ordered to pay directly to Karpala.
In February 2023, Karpala asked the trial court to award her additional attorney fees and costs, based on the disparity in the parties' financial circumstances under Family Code section 2030, and as sanctions under various provisions of the Family Code and Code of Civil Procedure. In doing so, Karpala reported that Longinotti paid only $3,000 of the $20,000 the court ordered him to pay to her in 2022.
Karpala also cited Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1 in support of her request, claiming she was entitled to prevailing party fees based on her belief that Longinotti deposited a cashier's check in lieu of posting a bond in order to stay execution of the 2022 attorney fees order pending his appeal. The parties do not address this statute on appeal. Moreover, it is unclear from the briefs whether Longinotti actually deposited the cashier's check with the trial court after giving notice of his intent to do so. We will not address section 917.1 in this opinion.
Longinotti opposed the award of any additional fees to Karpala, claiming he did not have the ability to pay additional need-based fees. He also asked the court to "issue a new ruling" that his payment of $53,000 to Karpala's trial counsel, and $3,000 to Karpala directly, satisfied his obligation under the 2022 attorney fees order. He argued that Karpala had not demonstrated that she incurred an additional $17,000 in fees to retain an appellate attorney to address his custody appeal, and contended that there was not a "statutory requirement to pay attorney fees that have not been spent...."
In reply to Longinotti's opposition, Karpala claimed that her trial counsel consulted with her on the appeals, such that she incurred fees from her attorney despite not retaining appellate counsel. She asserted she could not retain separate appellate counsel because Longinotti "refused" to pay the fees award. She questioned the veracity of Longinotti's claims denying he had the ability to pay additional fees. Longinotti in return argued that he should not have to pay for any work done by Karpala's attorney on the appeal "without a retainer or official representation."
At the initial hearing on the motion, the trial court denied Karpala's requests for additional need-based attorney fees and for sanctions. The court set a further hearing in June 2023 to address the fees and costs Karpala incurred for the custody appeal, and for the appeal from the 2022 attorney fees order. Prior to the June 2023 hearing, Karpala submitted a statement contending she incurred $23,447.25 in fees for her trial attorney to "successfully defend against [Longinotti's] multiple appeals." Karpala provided an itemized spreadsheet of time her attorney spent on the appeals, as well as redacted billing statements from her attorney. She asked the court to award her the full amount, and to give Longinotti credit for the $3,000 he had already paid.
In his pre-hearing statement, Longinotti set forth the two issues he believed the court intended to address at the June 2023 hearing: whether he owed Karpala attorney fees related to his appeal from the 2022 attorney fees order, and whether he owed Karpala additional amounts to satisfy the portion of that order requiring him to pay $20,000 for Karpala to retain appellate counsel to represent her in the custody appeal. Longinotti argued that attorney fees were not awardable as costs under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278, and thus he was not obligated to pay Karpala's fees for prevailing in the appeal from the attorney fees order. He also claimed that the court ordered him to pay $20,000 for the sole purpose of allowing Karpala to hire an attorney to represent her in the custody appeal. Longinotti asserted the billing statements Karpala presented for the June 2023 hearing included fees that were unrelated to hiring an appellate attorney for the custody appeal, and duplicated fees that were included in the 2022 attorney fees order. Longinotti subpoenaed records from the attorney Karpala intended to retain in 2022 to represent her in the custody appeal. That attorney confirmed that she started working on the appeal, but was unable to continue due to a medical condition. The attorney received a $3,000 payment and did not bill for any of her work or send a refund to Karpala's trial counsel. Because the appellate attorney did not submit any billing statements, Longinotti argued that Karpala could not substantiate any claim that he owed more than the $3,000 he already paid. Longinotti modified his request to ask that the court find that he satisfied his obligation under the 2022 attorney fees order, and that he was entitled to a refund from the $3,000 he did pay.
In its written order following the hearing, the trial court denied Longinotti's request to modify the 2022 attorney fees order requiring him to pay an additional $20,000 to Karpala. Having paid $3,000, the court determined that he owed Karpala $17,000 plus interest at the legal rate. The court found that no costs would be awarded from the appeal of the 2022 order "based on no proof of costs incurred." Longinotti timely appealed from the order.
Longinotti did not designate an oral record from the June 2023 hearing. The minute order from the hearing indicates that there was not a court reporter present at the June 2023 hearing. Longinotti did not designate a settled or agreed statement in lieu of a court reporter's transcript.
II. Discussion
Longinotti contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his request to modify the award of $20,000 to Karpala, claiming 1) the trial court misinterpreted the 2022 attorney fees order when it determined the $20,000 was for unspecified attorney fees rather than for the purposes of hiring an appellate attorney related to the custody appeal, and 2) Karpala did not incur any fees for an appellate attorney beyond the $3,000 Longinotti paid. Finding no error, we will affirm the order.
A. The Trial Court Did Not Misinterpret the 2022 Attorney Fees Award.
In the written order after hearing denying Longinotti's request to modify the 2022 attorney fees award, the trial court modified the language submitted by Longinotti in his proposed order. Longinotti's proposed order read, "The Court denies [Longinotti's] request to modify the Court's order of March 30, 2022 that [Longinotti] pay an additional $20,000 to [Karpala] to retain appellate counsel in [Longinotti's] appeal of the move-away order." The court struck the provision indicating the award was to retain appellate counsel for the custody appeal, and instead stated that the 2022 award was for "an additional $20,000 to [Karpala] for attorney fees." Longinotti argues that this constitutes a "[m]isinterpretation" of the 2022 order that is "inconsistent with documentary evidence."
"The interpretation of a court order is a question of law we review de novo. [Citations.] 'The same rules apply in ascertaining the meaning of a court order or judgment as in ascertaining the meaning of any other writing.' [Citations.]" (Law Firm of Fox and Fox v. Chase Bank, N.A. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 182, 203.) We must consider the order in its entirety, referring to the circumstances in which the order was made and the court's intention in making the order only if the language of the order is" 'in any degree uncertain ....'" (In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1429.)
The 2022 attorney fees order confirms that the trial court considered Karpala's need for an award to pay both the fees incurred in the trial court proceedings, and for fees for an appellate attorney. The court ordered Longinotti to pay $20,000 directly to Karpala without specifying the purpose of that payment. The order is clear on its face.
Even if we consider the circumstances surrounding the order and any evidence of the court's intent, we cannot say that the 2022 attorney fees award required Karpala to use the $20,000 only to retain a specific appellate attorney to represent her in the custody appeal. Karpala discussed her need for fees in relation to the ongoing litigation, including the custody appeal. She asked for a total award of $135,000, $20,000 of which was to retain an identified attorney to assist in the appellate proceedings that had already been instituted by Longinotti.
In making findings on the record in support of its order, the trial court indicated that the amounts Karpala owed to both her trial attorney and for "appellate fees" were "less than the amounts she actually incurred." The court indicated that it awarded $73,000 because, by the court's calculation, that was "what [Longinotti] potentially has left" after liquidating assets and receiving funds from his parents. It is reasonable to infer that the trial court would have awarded more fees had it believed Longinotti had access to more than $73,000 at the time. It is similarly reasonable to infer that the trial court, in awarding the $20,000 to Karpala in the 2022 order without specifying its intended purpose, intended her to use the money to either retain appellate counsel, or to compensate her for additional fees she already paid to her trial attorney. Had the court intended Karpala to use the money only to retain the specified appellate attorney, the court could have directed her to do so. Thus, in interpreting the 2022 order, the trial court did not err by rejecting the description proposed by Longinotti when it denied his modification request in 2023.
Notably, the same judicial officer issued both the 2022 attorney fees order, and the 2023 order denying Longinotti's request to modify the 2022 order.
B. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Failing to Modify the 2022 Attorney Fees Order.
"The court shall augment or modify the original award for attorney's fees and costs as may be reasonably necessary for the prosecution or defense of the proceeding, or any proceeding related thereto, including after any appeal has been concluded." (Fam. Code, § 2030, subd. (c).) "After a pendente lite award has been made, the trial court retains jurisdiction to modify the award at any time during the pendency of the action when a change of circumstances occurs that alters the extent of the services required. 'We entertain no doubt of the power of the court in divorce actions to modify its orders for the payment to [a spouse] of money necessary to enable [the spouse] to support [themselves] during the pendency of the action, or to enable [the spouse] to prosecute or defend the action, as the circumstances with regard to necessity change.' [Citation.] Should any of the contingencies occur that would preclude rendition of the anticipated services, the trial court could reduce the award to an amount necessary to compensate the attorney for services actually rendered. [Citations.]" (Warner v. Warner (1950) 34 Cal.2d 838, 841 (Warner).)
We review the court's order denying modification of the 2022 attorney fees award for abuse of discretion. (See Warner, supra, 34 Cal.2d at pp. 839-840; In re Marriage of Nakamoto &Hsu (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 457, 469.) "The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court's ruling under review. The trial court's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious." (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711-712, fns. omitted (Haraguchi).)
Longinotti argues that there is no evidence Karpala expended $20,000 to defend against the custody appeal before his dismissed the appeal in May 2022. He relies on his interpretation of the 2022 attorney fees order, under which he believes the trial court awarded the $20,000 for the sole purpose of retaining appellate counsel. As we have stated, we conclude that the trial court did not misinterpret the 2022 order in denying Longinotti's modification request. Thus, we now consider, based on the trial court's interpretation of the order as awarding $20,000 in general attorney fees, whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Longinotti's request. On the record before us, we cannot discern any such error.
Longinotti has the burden to affirmatively show error based on the record presented to this court. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 (Jameson); Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Oracle Corp. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 506, 563.) Where an appellant fails to provide a sufficient record for review, we will affirm the judgment based on the presumption of correctness. (Jameson, at p. 609; Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) While we are mindful of the fact that Longinotti is selfrepresented, we are nevertheless required to hold him to his burden to affirmatively demonstrate error based on the record before this court. (See Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)
Although there was not a court reporter present at the June 2023 hearing, Longinotti could have provided an agreed statement under California Rules of Court, rule 8.134, or a settled statement under rule 8.137. He elected not to do so. Thus, we have no record of the evidence and argument the trial court heard at the hearing, or any findings it made in ruling on Longinotti's modification request. Longinotti correctly asserts that the court's written order does not specify what attorney fees are subsumed in the $20,000 awarded in the 2022 order, or identify the legal basis on which it denied the request for modification. Because we do not know what transpired at the June 2023 hearing, we must presume that any matters that could have been presented to the court which would have authorized the order being appealed were presented at that hearing. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609.)
The record that is before this court indicates that the trial court, in issuing the 2022 attorney fees order, acknowledged that the attorney fees Karpala had already incurred were greater than the amount it awarded. The court's statements on the record establish that it limited the amount of the 2022 order based at least in part on its finding that Longinotti had $73,000 available to pay Karpala's attorney fees. The court did not specify how the $20,000 it ordered Longinotti to pay to Karpala directly was to be used. There is no evidence that Longinotti, in asking the court to modify the 2022 attorney fees order, demonstrated that Karpala did not incur at least $73,000 in attorney fees prior to date of the 2022 order. The record before us demonstrates no change in the circumstances that justified Karpala's need for an award of $73,000 to compensate for attorney services actually rendered prior to the 2022 attorney fees order (see Warner, supra, 34 Cal.2d at p. 841). We thus cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the relevant legal standards to the facts in an arbitrary or capricious manner. (Haraguchi, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 711-712.)
III. Disposition
The July 24, 2023 order denying Longinotti's request to modify the March 30, 2022 order is affirmed. Karpala shall be entitled to costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
WE CONCUR: GROVER, J., LIE, J.