Buchanan
Buchanan v. Alhino CA3
Opinion
Opinion
Filed 6/17/14 Buchanan v. Alhino CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Plumas) ----
JAMIE A. BUCHANAN, C072653
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. FL0626643)
v.
ANTHONY G. ALHINO,
Defendant and Respondent.
Jamie A. Buchanan (mother) appeals from a postjudgment order requiring her to contribute $4,000 toward Anthony G. Alhino’s (father) attorney fees. Mother claims the trial court abused its discretion in making its order, because: 1) father failed to file the required forms; 2) her new husband’s income should not have been a factor in the court’s determination of the parties’ relative abilities to pay attorney fees; and 3) the 60-day payment order was unsupported and inappropriate. Disagreeing, we…