Buchanan

Buchanan v. Alhino CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 17, 2014C072653California1,990 words

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.