MARGARET ELLEN O'CONNELL v. MARK ANDREW HEITNER

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

5) 6 MARGARET ELLEN O''CONNELL,) Case Number: FDI-23-798529) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 3, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 MARK ANDREW HEITNER,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS; AND BIFURCATION OF 13 VALIDITY OF PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT; ADVANCE OF FUNDS 14

16 At the 9/3/2026 hearing, the Court intends to adopt the following findings and orders 17 absent good cause shown. The parties are also ordered to appear in-person or via Zoom 18 video at 9:00 AM on 9/3/2026 in Department 404 to: (a) select a future long-cause hearing 19 date on the issue of the validity of the parties’ premarital agreement and (b) discuss Wife’s 20 request for a $500,000 from the Heitner O’Connell Trust account. The parties shall be 21 prepared to explain whether there is a dispute that the funds held in the Heitner O’Connell 22 Trust account is community property, what is the total balance of that account, and 23 whether Husband would agree to release to Wife $500,000 less the $25,000 that Husband 24 contends Wife spent between the parties’ purported dates of separation. 25 If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and 26 Instructions for Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 27

1 A. Procedural History 2 1) Petitioner Margaret O’Connell (Wife) and Respondent Mark Heitner (Husband) married 3 on 7/21/2007. The parties disagree regarding their exact date of separation, but they agree 4 they separated in 2023 for a marriage of approximately 15 years. The parties have no 5 minor children. Wife is represented by Lvovich & Szucsko, P.C. Husband is represented 6 by attorney David Lederman. 7 2) On for hearing is Wife’s Request for Order filed 2/13/2026 asking the Court to award 8 Wife $25,000 in need-based attorney’s fees and costs, permit her to take an advance of at 9 least $500,000 from the Heitner O’Connell Trust account (Charles Schwab xxx9317), 10 and bifurcate and set a separate trial on the issue of the validity of the parties’ premarital 11 agreement. 12 3) On 2/13/2026, Wife filed an Income and Expense Declaration.

Wife states she is 64 years 13 old and is retired. Wife does not report any source of income. Wife states her monthly 14 expenses total $5,740. Wife states she has $440,500 in cash savings and $184,500 in 15 easily saleable investments. Wife does not report any debts. Wife states she had paid her 16 attorney $6,561 to date and owes her attorney $0. 17 4) On 4/13/2026, Wife filed a Notice of Errata to which her declaration is attached. Wife 18 states that the cash savings and easily saleable investments that she lists in her Income 19 and Expense Declaration are her share of the proceeds from the sale of the marital 20 residence.

Wife states that to date she has paid the following sums to the following law 21 firms: $11,600 to Schoenberg Family Law Group, P.C., $54,400 to Robbins Family Law 22 and $20,000 to Lvovich & Szucsko. Wife states that, to date, she has not received an 23 award for need-based attorney’s fees, although Husband was ordered in December 2024 24 to pay her $13,563 as a sanction for his abuse of the discovery process. Wife further 25 seeks an advance of community property in the amount of at least $500,000 from the 26 Heitner O’Connell Trust account (Charles Schwab xxx9317).

Wife states that after she 27 told Husband that she wanted a divorce, he immediately moved community funds into his 28 personal account to which she has no access and it took several months before he agreed 29 to return the funds. Wife states that she may need a forensic accountant to verify that he

1 divided the money evenly. Wife states, “I want to be sure I preserve as much of my share 2 of the community funds as possible, and I do not want to financially be at Respondent’s 3 mercy.” 4 5) On 6/9/2026, a Stipulation and Order was filed wherein the parties agreed to continue the 5 hearing on Wife’s 2/13/2026 Request for Order to 9/3/2026 and also stipulated to 6 bifurcate and set a separate trial on the issue of the validity of the parties’ premarital 7 agreement. 8 6) On 8/21/2026, Husband filed a Responsive Declaration.

Husband requests that until the 9 Court has adjudicated the validity and enforceability of the Premarital Agreement as well 10 as the parties’ date of separation, the Court should refrain from ordering him to distribute 11 or advance funds from assets that he contends are his separate property under the 12 agreement. Husband also states that between 3/31/2023 (Husband’s purported date of 13 separation) and 6/26/2023 (Wife’s purported date of separation), Wife withdrew or spent 14 approximately $25,000 from the parties’ joint account for her own purpose, including 15 plastic surgery and the purchase of a computer.

Husband states that Wife should be 16 required to account for those funds before ordering any additional advance. Husband also 17 states that the parties had planned to live in London following his retirement. Husband 18 states the Court should consider that, after the parties’ separation, he had to incur $76,000 19 in tuition expenses to remain living in London because he could no longer rely on his 20 marriage to Wife as a basis for residing in London. Husband further asks the Court to 21 consider that Wife worked as a professional organizer during the marriage and charged 22 $150 - $200 per hour for her services.

Husband states to his knowledge Wife does not 23 have any condition that prevents her from resuming this work or other employment 24 consistent with her skills and experience. Husband also states that Wife is nearing the age 25 she may qualify for Social Security benefits and may already be eligible to claim reduced 26 benefits. Husband states that during marriage, he earned $150,000 per year and that he is 27 now retired. Husband states that his income in 2025 was $48,587 from all sources, 28 including social security. 29

1 7) On 8/21/2026, Husband filed an Income and Expense Declaration. Husband states that he 2 is 71 years old and has been retired since 2023. Husband states he earns on average 3 $4,560 per month in social security income plus $948 per month in dividends and 4 interest. Husband states that he has $210,128 in cash savings, $0 in easily saleable 5 investments, and $5.3 million in personal property. Husband states that his monthly 6 estimated expenses total $8,592. Husband does not list any debts.

Husband states he has 7 paid his attorney $15,000 to date from his checking account. 8 8) On 8/27/2026, Wife filed a Reply Declaration. Wife states that she has not worked since 9 July 2022, when the parties sold their house. The plan was for the parties to live off of the 10 proceeds and draw on retirement. Wife state that she will be 65 in September 2026. Wife 11 states, “Rebuilding a business that would actually be lucrative is simply not possible, 12 particularly given 1) wages for progressional organizers in the UK are a fraction of what 13 they are in the US, and 2) competition from younger organizers.”

Wife states there is a 14 disparity in access to funds to pay legal fees. Wife reiterates her request for an advance of 15 $500,000 from the Heitner O’Connell Trust account. Wife states, “Mark has shown a 16 strong propensity to move funds without notice and to hide assets, as pointed out in 17 Maggie’s original Request for Order and as will be discussed further at the hearing. 18 Maggie is entitled to her fair share of the undisputed community assets, to protect herself 19 financially, and to avoid any risk of financial misconduct by Mark.” 20 B.

Findings and Order 21 1) Under Family Code section 2030, the Court finds that there is a disparity in access to 22 funds to pay legal fees, Wife has a need, and Husband has the ability to pay the requested 23 fees in addition to his own attorney’s fees and costs. The Court also finds that Wife’s 24 request for $25,000 in fees is just, reasonable, and necessary. Husband shall pay to Wife 25 $25,000 for need-based attorney’s fees and costs no later than 9/15/2026. 26 2) The parties are ordered to appear on at 9:00 AM on 9/3/2026 in Department 404 to: 27 (a) select a future long-cause hearing date on the issue of the validity of the parties’ 28 premarital agreement and (b) discuss Wife’s request for a $500,000 from the 29 Heitner O’Connell Trust account.

The parties shall be prepared to explain whether

1 there is a dispute that the funds held in the Heitner O’Connell Trust account is 2 community property, what is the total balance of that account, and whether 3 Husband would agree to release to Wife $500,000 less the $25,000 that Husband 4 contends Wife spent between the parties’ purported dates of separation. 5 3) Wife’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 6 4) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing 7 – within 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to 8 the other party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of 9 Court, Rule 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was 10 uncontested, submit the proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to 11 submit the order after hearing within 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a 12 proposed order and submit it to the court in accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 13 5.125(d). 14

18

22

26

29