Hofer

Hofer v. Hofer

Bad Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 697·208 Cal. App. 4th 454
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 13, 2012No. B228461California1,989 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

*456 Opinion

In this marital dissolution action, the trial court orders the husband to pay the wife’s attorney fees and costs pursuant to Family Code section 2030. 1 The husband appeals and contends the evidence of his financial circumstances is insufficient. Perhaps. But here sufficiency of the evidence is beside the point. The husband chose not to disclose evidence of his financial circumstances despite three separate discovery orders and sanctions. This choice “disentitles” the husband to a choice accorded most litigants, the choice to appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

FACTS

John M. and Lisa M. Hofer were married in 1991. 2 They have two minor children. John filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage on January 9, 2009.

Lisa did not work outside the home during the marriage. John has an ownership interest in several business entities owned by his family. Within the marriage, John was the sole manager of these assets. Information regarding their value, income stream and possible community ownership is solely within his knowledge. It is undisputed that John has substantial income and assets derived from his family’s businesses. How substantial? Lisa has been unable to…

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.