KENT PENWELL v. REAGAN PENWELL

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 KENT PENWELL,) Case Number: FDI-25-801720) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 REAGAN PENWELL,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, CHILD SUPPORT, PROPERTY 13 CONTROL, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 16 Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 17 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 18 A.

Procedural History 19 1) The parties are Petitioner Kent Penwell (Father) and Respondent Reagan Penwell (Mother). They 20 share two minor children subject to this proceeding: Stella Grace Penwell (DOB: 02/02/15) and 21 Kent Ryan Penwell II (DOB: 10/05/16). 22 2) On 1/28/26, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking guideline monthly child support, $83,143 23 in temporary monthly spousal support, property control (of the San Francisco property, Rancho 24 Mirage property, and Idaho property), and $300,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Mother attached 25 (a) form FL-157 Spousal or Domestic Partner Support Declaration Attachment wherein she 26 asserts “an extremely high” marital standard of living and her role as homemaker and caretaker of 27 the children during marriage; (b) proposed XSpouse Calculations; and (c) form FL-319 Request 28 for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Attachment. The matter was set for hearing on 4/9/26. 29

1 3) On 3/12/26, Mother filed a Request for Temporary Emergency (Ex Parte) Orders seeking to 2 advance the 4/9/26 hearing date alleging Father reduced the credit limit on the parties’ 3 community credit card and redirected funds away from their community bank account., which 4 Father opposed. 5 4) On 3/13/26, the Court denied Mother’s ex parte request to advance the 4/9/26 hearing date. 6 5) On 3/17/26, Mother filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 7 6) On 3/17/26, Mother filed an updated Statement of Support Calculations. 8 7) On 3/19/26, Mother’s attorney filed a declaration in support of her Request for Order asserting 9 that Mother has been seeking child support and temporary spousal support since she filed a 10 Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) on 10/7/25 in related case no.

FDV- 11 25-818682. Attached as Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 are charts accounting for Mother’s legal fees and 12 costs, which include attorney’s fees and costs for the DVRO action. 13 8) On 3/19/26, Mother filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities wherein she asserts she has 14 been a fulltime homemaker and caretaker of the children while supporting Father’s career at 15 Deutsche Bank where his monthly earnings exceed $558,000. Mother states Father has over 16 $60,000,000 in assets. Mother requests $59,734 in guideline monthly child support and $83,151 17 in temporary monthly spousal support for a total monthly support order of $142,884 retroactive to 18 7/18/25 (i.e., the date the Petition for Nullity was filed). 19 9) On 3/26/26, Father filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Mother’s Request for Order. 20 Father requests the Court order guideline monthly child support and temporary monthly spousal 21 support pursuant to his concurrently filed Statement of Support Calculations and effective 5/1/26 22 due to voluntary support payments he made.

Father asks the Court to impute Mother with fulltime 23 minimum wage income and rental income for the Rancho Mirage property. Father requests the 24 Court reserve jurisdiction over support until the Court determines whether the marriage is 25 annulled or dissolved so that certain income, including deferred compensation and annual bonus 26 income, can either be divided as community property or paid as bonus support. Father seeks 27 $86,000 in reimbursement for attorney’s fees Mother withdrew from his bank account and 28 requests the Court refrain from awarding Mother additional attorney’s fees until after the nullity 29 trial.

Father asks the Court for exclusive use, possession, and control of the San Francisco

1 property and Rancho Mirage property. Father attached form FL-157 Spousal or Domestic Partner 2 Support Declaration Attachment wherein he agrees the marital standard of living was “upper 3 class and high.” Father asserts Mother worked for Meta in 2025 as an Executive Assistant, has a 4 master’s degree in education, and has her California Teaching Credentials. Father states 5 Mother’s LinkedIn profile shows she is a PhD candidate at Stanford. Father also attached form 6 FL-319 Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Attachment. 7 10) On 3/26/26, Father filed a supportive attorney declaration and Memorandum of Points and 8 Authorities asserting that (a) Mother’s request for attorney’s fees is essentially a renewal of her 9 prior request because she is seeking fees incurred “for the DVRO matter and/or nullity matter”; 10 (b) Father already contributed $136,000 to Mother’s attorney’s fees; and (c) Mother is over- 11 litigating the case and incurring unnecessary, excessive, and unreasonable attorney’s fees. 12 11) On 3/26/26, Father filed a Statement of Support Calculations. 13 12) On 3/26/26, Father filed a Request for Judicial Notice of the City and County of San Francisco’s 14 official notice of the “Minimum Wage Ordinance.” 15 13) On 3/26/26, Father filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 16 14) On 4/3/26, Father filed an updated Statement of Support Calculations. 17 15) On 4/3/26, Mother filed a Notice of Lodging of Confidential Documents. 18 16) 4/3/26, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to the affirmative relief Father 19 requested in his Responsive Declaration.

The Court will consider this a Reply Declaration and 20 treat it as such. It is Mother’s position that Father’s Statement of Support Calculations excludes 21 most of his monthly income and fails to account for Father’s overall wealth and assets. Mother 22 asserts retroactive support orders are warranted given that Father filed a Petition for Nullity on 23 7/18/25 and was served with a request for support orders on 10/10/25. Mother disputes Father’s 24 allegations regarding her allegedly excessive spending, mismanagement of the Rancho Mirage 25 rental property, and imputation of income. 26 17) On 4/6/26, Mother filed a supplemental attorney declaration attaching redacted billing statements. 27 18) On 4/6/26, Mother filed an opposition to Father’s Request for Judicial Notice disputing its 28 relevance. 29

1 19) On 4/6/26, Mother filed a Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities reiterating: (a) her 2 opposition to Father’s position; and (b) her requests. 3 20) At the prior 4/9/26 hearing, the Court ordered, in pertinent part: 4 a. The Court finds imputation of minimum wage income to Mother is consistent with the 5 best interests of the children, taking into consideration the overall welfare and 6 developmental needs of the children, and the time that Mother spends with the children. 7 b. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to adopt Father’s Statement of 8 Support Calculations filed 4/3/26, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein, and 9 order as follows: 10 c.

Mother’s request for guideline child support and temporary monthly spousal support is 11 GRANTED effective 1/28/26 (i.e., the filing date of the Request for Order). The Court 12 notes that Mother’s Request for DVRO filed 10/7/25 in related case no. FDV-25-818682 13 wherein she requested child support and spousal support was dismissed on 1/21/26. 14 d. For the period of 1/28/26 (i.e., the filing date of the Request for Order) to 4/2/26 (i.e., 15 when the parenting timeshare was adjusted), Father owes Mother $18,611 in guideline 16 child support and $26,323 in temporary monthly spousal support for a total monthly 17 support payment of $43,660.

Child support add-on expenses shall be allocated 39% to 18 Mother and 61% to Father. See Attachment 1 of Father’s Statement of Support 19 Calculations filed 4/3/26. The Court reserves jurisdiction over guideline child support and 20 temporary monthly spousal support arrears owed by Father to Mother for trial given that 21 Father paid voluntary expenses that require an accounting. 22 e. Effective 4/3/26, Father owes Mother $16,823 in guideline child support and $24,277 in 23 temporary monthly spousal support for a total monthly support payment of $39,902. 24 Child support add-on expenses shall be allocated 47% to Mother and 53% to Father.

See 25 Attachment 2 of Father’s Statement of Support Calculations filed 4/3/26. Father shall pay 26 support by the 1st of every month, except April 2026 support is due 4/15/26. 27 f. The Court reserves jurisdiction over characterization and allocation of Father’s deferred 28 compensation and annual bonus income so that the Court can first determine whether any 29 portion of such funds is community.

1 g. The Court reserves jurisdiction to modify the support orders made herein retroactive to 2 1/28/26, including, but not limited to, issuing an order for Smith/Ostler bonus support. 3 The matter is CONTINUED to 7/21/26 at 9 AM in Dept. 403 for the Court to make any 4 necessary modifications to the support orders made herein. The Court selects this hearing 5 date since the parties are set for nullity trial on 6/25/26 and 6/30/26. Both parties shall 6 submit update declarations, updated Income and Expense Declarations, and updated 7 Statement of Support Calculations at least 10 days in advance of the 7/21/26 hearing. 8 h.

Mother’s request for $300,000 in attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED subject to 9 reallocation. The Court finds an award of attorney's fees and costs is appropriate because 10 there is a substantial disparity between the parties in access to funds to retain or maintain 11 counsel and in the ability to pay for legal representation. The Court makes this award to 12 ensure parity in this action as Father has the ability to pay for legal representation for 13 both parties. The Court finds the requested attorney's fees and costs are reasonable and 14 necessary based on a totality of the circumstances; however, the Court is concerned that 15 counsel for Mother is over-litigating the case.

Counsel for Mother is admonished to 16 adjust litigation strategies accordingly. Father shall pay the $300,000 balance in full 17 within 30 days. 18 i. Both parties’ requests for property control orders are DENIED. 19 21) On 7/10/26, Father filed an updated Statement of Support Calculation, Income and Expense 20 Declaration, and a supportive declaration regarding his position on retroactive child and spousal 21 support and post-separation accounting and characterization of his deferred compensation. 22 Attached as “Attachment 1” is a report by Jeff Stegner of Bridge Forensic.

Father requests the 23 Court: (a) order that no child or spousal support arrearage is owed to Mother through 7/1/26; (b) 24 find that Mother owes Father a reimbursement of $127,814 or $136,486 or reserve on the issue of 25 reimbursement; (c) order that Mother immediately assume all carrying costs for the San Francisco 26 residence; (d) order that Mother immediately assume all carrying costs for the Idaho property 27 (including the related club membership); and (e) order that Mother share equally in the carrying 28 costs of the Rancho Mirage property and equally share any rental income received. 29

1 22) On 7/10/26, Mother filed an updated Statement of Support Calculation and Income and Expense 2 Declaration. Mother retained Certified Public Accountant, Jessica Lordan to perform an 3 accounting. It is Mother’s position that Father owes her guideline base monthly child support of 4 $19,190 and spousal support of $30,796, for a total of $49,986 in total monthly support plus 5 Smith/Ostler support. In addition, Mother requests the Court: (a) order Father to pay $35,278 in 6 retroactive spousal support for the period of 1/28/26 – 1/31/26; (a) order Father to pay $21,717 in 7 retroactive child support for the period of 17/18/25 – 1/31/26. 8 B.

Findings and Order 9 1) The disputes regarding the parties’ finances are complex; therefore, more than the time allotted 10 on the Court’s law and motion calendar is needed to adequately evaluate: (a) characterization and 11 allocation of Father’s deferred compensation and annual bonus income (so that the Court can first 12 determine whether any portion of such funds is community); (b) any necessary modification of 13 the support orders issued on 12/16/25 retroactive to 1/28/26, including, but not limited to, issuing 14 an order for Smith/Ostler bonus support. 15 2) As such, the parties are ordered to appear to select a date to return for hearing on the Court’s 16 long-cause calendar.

The Court will set the matter for hearing at 1:45 PM; however, the hearing 17 will be conducted in the manner of a short-cause hearing. No additional filings are necessary. 18 3) The Court continues to reserve jurisdiction to modify support retroactive to 1/28/26. 19

23

27

29