Erin Velez Muller v. Daniel Kirkman Muller

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN

DATE: 6/4/26 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: B CASE NO: FL0002450

PRESIDING: HON. JAMES M. SCHURZ

REPORTER: CLERK: A. URTON

PETITIONER: ERIN VELEZ MULLER

and

RESPONDENT: DANIEL KIRKMAN MULLER

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER – CHILD SUPPORT; ATTORNEY’S FEES; CASE PROGRESS CONFERENCE

RULING

Erin Vellez Muller (Mother) filed a Request for Order re Attorney’s Fees. Child Support, and other orders with this Court on April 1, 2026. Specifically, Mother seeks orders from this Court: (1) directing Daniel Kirkman Muller (Father) to pay base child support at the guideline amount for the parties’ three children Colin Francis (DOB 07/07/2022), Gavin Quinn (DOB 02/23/2024), and Shane Martin (DOB 02/23/2024); (2) ordering Father to divide child support add-on expenses in proportion with the parties’ respective net spendable income; (3) ordering Father to pay base child support and child support add-on expenses retroactive to the date of the filing of the Petition for Dissolution on November 24, 2025; (4) setting spousal support at $0 per month; and (5) ordering Father to pay prevailing party attorney’s fees of $72,533.40.

Father filed a Responsive Declaration to the Request for Order (1) opposing the calculation of child support and add-on expenses; (2) seeking an order for temporary spousal support to Father; (3) seeking attorney fees and costs to be paid by Mother to Father; (4) denying Mother’s request for attorney’s fees with regard to this Request for Order; and (5) conceding a “reasonable” order for attorney’s fees associated with the Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) proceedings that takes into account Father’s ability to pay and his own burden of fees to defend against multiple allegations involving four different persons.

The Court addresses each of the competing claims raised by the parties.

As a starting point, the Court observes that this legal proceeding has been active. The Court’s docket reflects the filing of 128 separate submissions over a six-month period (11/24/2025 to 5/28/26). This has resulted in a high level of attorney engagement with the associated fees. It is the hope of this Court that resolution of the issues herein will allow counsel to work towards de-escalating and resolving matters in the future with decreased court involvement.

FL0002450

Mother’s Request for Guideline Child Support

Father does not oppose payment of guideline child support. The dispute centers on the inputs and assumptions used by each party. This is understandable given the dynamic visitation schedule the parties have designed (and this Court has ordered) and the incremental increases in Father’s custodial time.

Commencing in December 2025, Father’s timeshare was 18%. Commencing May 1, 2026, his timeshare increased to 21%, and commencing June 1, 2026, to 24%. The Court’s calculations reflect these three different custodial timeshare arrangements. The Court has considered the arguments and submissions of the parties relating to calculation of custodial time. The Court is guided by Marin Local Rule 7.14(C) which provides that the Court strongly discourages the counting of hours in determining time-share. Further the Court may exercise discretion in application of the guidelines based on good cause.

Here, the exchanges for the children all occur at Father’s residence. Mother (or the nanny) shoulders the responsibility for transport of the children. The Court adopts the following values for custodial time with Father: (1) December 2025 through April 2026 (six months) (18%), (2) May 2026 (21%), and (3) June 2026 going forward (24%).

The Court has considered Mother’s argument that where she is awarded “sole” physical custody, the threshold is 20% custodial time for Father. The Court observes that this is a temporary order, and Father has made clear his intention to seek increased custodial time.

With respect to monthly income, the Court applies $13,750 (Father) and $23,429 (Mother) as reported in the Income and Expense Declarations. The Court treats the funds received by Father from his family as loans as opposed to gifts based on Father’s representation that he has borrowed money from his family, signed promissory notes to repay them, and commenced repaying the loan upon receiving an annual bonus from work. See, Declaration of D. Muller dated 5/21/2026.

Father pays $98 per month for dental and vision insurance as pre-tax wage deduction. Mother pays property taxes in the amount of $1,292 per month and deductible mortgage interest in the amount of $3,198 per month. Both parties contribute to a post-tax Roth IRA which is not included in the calculations. The parties agree that Mother will claim three exemptions and Father will claim two exemptions. Mother suggests that the parties will file a joint tax return for 2026 but the Court will utilize Head of Household status for Mother and Single for Father.

Mother’s Request for Retroactive Child Support

Mother requests retroactive child support tied to the date of her filing the Petition for Dissolution and DVRO on November 26, 2025. Father opposes retroactive child support based on an inability to pay. See, Declaration of D. Muller dated 5/21/2026.

Having considered the submissions of the party, the respective financial position of the parties, and the best interests of the children, the Court adopts a retroactive date for child support of April 1, 2026, the filing date of the Request for Order.

FL0002450

Mother’s Request to Set Spousal Support at $0 and Father’s Request for Guideline Spousal Support

The finding of domestic abuse sufficient to support a DVRO does not automatically trigger the Family Code section 4325 presumption against awarding spousal support to a spouse who has engaged in domestic violence. Section 4325 specifically requires a criminal conviction. In re Marriage of Cauley, 138 Cal. App. 4th 1100 (2006). However, courts must consider "documented evidence of any history of domestic violence" when ordering spousal support under section 4320(i). In re Marriage of Priem, 214 Cal. App. 4th 505 (2013). Here, the issuance of a DVRO constitutes documented evidence of domestic violence that must be considered in spousal support determinations, even if it does not trigger the section 4325 presumption.

The parties were married January 4, 2021. They separated November 24, 2025, following the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order that included a move-out provision. While both parties earn significant salaries, they both attest to having little discretionary income, dedicating available resources to supporting their children. Both parties further testify to the financial strain of going through the divorce proceedings.

Father argues that he is entitled to spousal support based on wife’s superior monthly earnings. He offers an extensive explanation as to the costs he has incurred in setting up a new residence. But he offers no explanation for how, if at all, the Court should take into account the DVRO.

Accordingly, the Court finds that, for purposes of this temporary order, spousal support is set at $0.

Mother’s Request regarding Calculation of Add-ons

The parties shall share in childcare costs expended by a party so that they may work and shall share in out-of-pocket uninsured health care costs incurred for the minor child, pursuant to Family Code section 4063. These expenses shall be shared proportionately as additional child support, with Mother paying 68% and Father paying 32%, pursuant to Family Code sections 4061 and 4062. See attached Notice of Rights and Responsibilities (Form FL-192.)

Mother’s Request for Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees

Mother seeks prevailing party attorney’s fees in the amount of $72,533.40 associated with the DVRO. Under California Family Code section 6344, when a petitioner prevails on some but not all claims in a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) proceeding, the court retains discretion in awarding attorney's fees based on the petitioner's prevailing party status and the respondent's ability to pay. The statute mandates that courts determine the respondent's ability to pay pursuant to section 270 before issuing any fee award, and courts must consider the respective incomes, needs, and factors affecting both parties' abilities to pay.

As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Mother is a prevailing party for purposes of section 6344. The fact that she did not prevail on all her claims (e.g., the denial of a restraining order

FL0002450

protecting the three children), does not alter her status as a prevailing party. The statute does not require complete success on all claims for a petitioner to qualify as a prevailing party.

Here, Father’s financial circumstances constitute a critical factor in the court's discretionary analysis. Section 6344 requires courts to determine "based upon (1) the respective incomes and needs of the parties, and (2) any factors affecting the parties' respective abilities to pay." Dragones v. Calkins, 98 Cal. App. 5th 1075 (2024). This two-pronged inquiry ensures that fee awards account for both parties' financial realities.

Courts must make specific findings regarding ability to pay. As noted in In re Marriage of Hoch, "if a court orders a party to pay attorney's fees or costs under this code, the court shall first determine that the party has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to pay." In re Marriage of Hoch, 119 Cal. App. 5th 80, 100 fn. 4 (2026).

Father’s Income and Expense Declaration indicates that he receives $13,750 a month in income. He reports estimated monthly expenses of $7,538 which includes $1,378 a month for automobile expenses. There is disagreement with respect to Father’s additional sources of income and access to funds. By way of example, Father represents that his own attorney’s fees are being paid by “family” in the form of a loan. Mother disputes this characterization, but the Court finds that Father’s family funds are indeed a loan. Based on Father’s reported income (and expenses), the Court finds that Father can pay prevailing party attorney fees subject to modification as set forth below.

The Court further finds that Mother’s request for attorney’s fees is supported by relevant evidence.

Mother’s request is supported by declarations that include detailed, itemized billing statements that illustrate an effort to segregate work performed for the DVRO from the dissolution proceeding.

In addition, Mother is represented by two counsel with billing rates of $650 and $325 an hour, respectively. The higher billing rate is consistent with market rates and approximately 11% higher than Father’s attorney’s hourly rate. The Court finds that the billing statements submitted by Mother reflect an effort to “push work down” to the lowest billing rate and capture efficiencies.

As noted above, Father’s current financial situation, however, poses a hurdle in terms of his ability to pay the $72,533.40 requested by Mother. When considered in light of the income declarations and supporting materials submitted by the parties, the Court finds that an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees paid by Father to Mother in the amount $45,000 is warranted.

FL0002450

Conclusion

CHILD SUPPORT

Father must pay monthly child support to Mother beginning April 1, 2026, and continuing until further order of the court, or until the child marries, dies, is emancipated, reaches age 19, or reaches age 18 and is not a full-time high school student, whichever occurs first, as follows: a. Commencing April 1, 2026, in the amount of $1,806.00 (see Exhibit A).

b. Commencing May 1, 2026, in the amount of $1,534.00_ (see Exhibit B).

c. Commencing June 1, 2026, in the amount of $1,245.00 (see Exhibit C), with attached bonus tables for each party. Parties are directed to calculate bonus child support by exchanging their end-of-year paystubs, W2s, 1099s, and other documents evidencing income by April 15 of each year for the prior year. The Court reserves jurisdiction over determination of bonus child support if the parties are unable to agree.

Child support is payable one-half on the 1st and one-half on the 15th of the month.

Notice of Rights and Responsibilities Regarding Child Support (Form FL-192) is attached and incorporated into this order.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Temporary spousal support is set at zero, effective April 1, 2026.

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Father is directed to pay $45,000 to Mother as and for attorney’s fees pursuant to Family Code section 6344, payable by July 20, 2026.

MOTHER’S OBJECTION TO FATHER’S LATE-FILED SUPPORT CALCULATIONS

The Court has not considered Father’s late-filed pleadings and Mother’s motion strike is therefore moot, and DENIED. Mother’s request for Family Code section 271 sanctions against Father for filing a late document is DENIED.

Any requests for relief not addressed in this Order are DENIED.

Counsel for Mother to prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be

FL0002450

permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 7.12(C), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department B. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department B for video conference via a link on the court website. Litigants in the virtual courtroom are required to leave the video screen on and wait for your case to be called.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence.

f10002450 muller xspouse.xsp 2026 Fixed Shares Father Mother Number of children 0 3 Percent time with NCP 18.00% 0,00% Filing status SINGLE HH/MLA Number of exemptions 2 3 Wages and salary 13750 23429 Self employed income 0 Other taxable income TANF CS received Other nontaxable income New spouse income Employee 401-k contribution Adjustments to income SS paid prev marriage CS paid prev marriage Health insurance Other medical expenses Property tax expenses Ded interest expense Contribution deduction Mise tax deductions Qualified business income deduction Required union dues Mandatory retirement Hardship deduction Other GDL deductions Child care expenses ooo cccCcmUcrcWChUhcO ico] co ooocnrocooooo cco 1292 3198 qQoeooc”rooonocno 0 © ooo coco coc © Father pays Guideline CS, Proposed CS FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information DOB Timeshare 18-82 18 - 82 18 - 82 18 - 82 All children Colin 2022-07-07 Gavin 2024-02-23 Shane 2024-02-23 Xspouse 2026-1-CA Monthly Figures Monthly Figures Cash Flow 2026 Guideline Proposed Combined net spendable 26551 26919 GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 1% Nets (adjusted) Father Father 9412 Payment cost/benefit -1806 -1500 Mother 17139 Net spendable income 7606 7913 Total 26551 Change from guideline 0 307 Support % of combined spendable 29% 29% Addons 0 % of saving over guideline 0% 83% Guideln CS {gg ‘Total taxes. 4240 3792 User SS 0 Dep. exemption value 0: 0 Total 1806 # Withholding allowances 0 0 Net wage paycheck 8899 8899 Seitings changed Mother Proposed Payment cost/benefit 1806 1867 Tactic 9 Net spendable income 18945 19006 Change from guideline 0 61 ee aa % of combined spendable 1% 71% Total 1948 % of saving over guideline 0% 17% . Total taxes 6290 6371 Saving 368 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Releases 2 4 withholding allowances 0 0 Net wage paycheck 15051 15051 cce(F) — cce(fif) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor 0 0 0 Father 1,806 Father 1,806 Father 0 0 0 Father 361 Father 361 Father 0 0 0 Father 542 Father 542 Father 0 0 0 Father 903 Father 903 Father Superior Court of California County of Marin

f10002450 muller xspouse.xsp 2026 Fixed Shares Number of children Percent time with NCP Filing status Number of exemptions Wages and salary Self employed income Other taxable income TANF CS received Other nontaxable income New spouse income Employee 401-k contribution Adjustments to income SS paid prev marriage CS paid prev marriage Health insurance Other medical expenses Property tax expenses Ded interest expense Contribution deduction Misc tax deductions Qualified business income deduction Required union dues Mandatory retirement Hardship deduction Other GDL deductions Child care expenses Father 0 21.00% Mother 3 0.00% SINGLE HH/MLA 2 13750 0 ooo co coc.cllUlcOlCh Om 9 [ore] oqgqoocrooocoo coc 2] Father pays Guideline CS, Proposed CS FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information DOB All children Colin 2022-07-07 Gavin 2024-02-23 Shane 2024-02-23 3 23429 Qoqooeooocoocoo co 2] 1292 3198 oooocococeo © Timeshare 21-79 21-79 21-79 21-79 Xspouse 2026-1-CA Monthly Figures Monthly Figures Gash Flow 2026 Guideline Proposed Combined net spendable 26551 26919 GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 1% Nets (adjusted) Father Father 9412 Payment cost/benefit ~1534 -1227 Mother 17139 Net spendable income 7878 8185 Total 26551 ~~ Change from guideline 0 306 Support % of combined spendable 30% 30% Addons 0 % of saving over guideline 0% 83% Guideln CS 1534 Total taxes 4240 3792 User SS 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 4534 # withholding allowances 0 0 Net wage paycheck 8899 8899 Settings changed Mother Proposed Payment cost/benefit 1534 1595 Tactic 9 Net spendable income 18673 18734 Change from guideline 0 62 cs “ter % of combined spendable 70% 70% Total A676 % of saving over guideline 0% 17%; Total taxes 6290 6371 Saving 368 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Releases 2 # withholding allowances 0 0 Net wage paycheck 15051 15054 cce(F} — cce(M) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor 0 0 0 Father 1,534 Father 1,534 Father 0 0 0 Father 307 Father 307 Father 0 0 0 Father 460 Father 460 Father 0 0 0 Father 767 Father 767 Father Superior Court of California County of Marin

f10002450 muller xspouse.xsp 2026 Fixed Shares Number of children Percent time with NCP Filing status Number of exemptions Wages and salary Self employed income Other taxable income TANF CS received Other nontaxable income New spouse income Employee 401-k contribution Adjustments to income SS paid prev marriage CS paid prev marriage Health insurance Other medical expenses Property tax expenses Ded interest expense Contribution deduction Misc tax deductions Qualified business income deduction Required union dues Mandatory retirement Hardship deduction Other GDL deductions Child care expenses Father Mother 0 24.00% 3 0.00% SINGLE HH/MLA 2 13750 0 9 oc oqoeoooocooo oc & Father pays Guideline CS, Proposed CS FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child information poB All children Colin 2022-07-07 Gavin 2024-02-23 Shane 2024-02-23 oOo Oc COCO Oo 3 23429 0 oqoooocnoooo co & 1292 wo = co lee) oooccocoo Timeshare 24-76 24-76 24-76 24-76 Xspouse 2026-1-CA Monthly Figures Monthly Figures Gash Flow 2026 Guideline Proposed Combined net spendable 26551 26919 GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 1% Nets (adjusted) Father Father 9412 Payment cost/benefit -1245 -939 Mother 17139 Net spendable income 8167 8473 Total 26551 + Change from guideline 0 306 Support % of combined spendable 31% 31% Addons 0 % of saving over guideline 0% 83% Guideln CS 4945 ‘Total taxes 4240 3792 User SS 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 4945 # withholding allowances 0 0 Net wage paycheck 8899 8899 Settings changed Mother Proposed Payment cost/benefit 1245 1307 Tactic 9 we sponta’ neon an me ange from guideline cS ~1388 % of combined spendable 69% 69% SS 0 0, 7 j 1 0 Q, Total 4388 % of saving over guideline 0% 17%; Total taxes 6290 6371 Saving 368 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Releases 2 4 withholding allowances 0 0 Net wage paycheck 15051 15051 cce(F) — cce(ii) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor 0 0 0 Father 1,245 Father 1,245 Father 0 0 0 Father 249 Father 249 Father 0 0 0 Father 374 Father 374 Father 0 0 0 Father 623 Father 623 Father Superior Court of California County of Marin

f10002450 muller xspouse.xsp Bonus amounts from: 0 Father's Bonus 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 90000 95000 100000 105000 110000 115000 120000 125000 130000 135000 140000 145000 150000 155000 160000 165000 470000 175000 180000 to: Xspouse 2026-1-CA ANNUAL BONUS INCOME FATHER (0 = default steps) 200000 Step: §000 Additional Cost to Father Child Support % of bonus 0.00 17.20 17.17 17.13 17.09 17.37 17.59 17.75 17.76 17.73 17.70 17.66 17.51 17.33 17.17 17.03 16.91 16.88 16.85 16.82 16.79 16.76 16.73 16.70 16.65 16.60 16.54 16.49 16.44 16.39 16.35 16.30 16.26 16.22 16.19 16.15 16.11 $ 0 860 1717 2569 3413 4343 5276 6212 7105 7978 8848 9714 10505 11264 12021 12776 13528 14349 15167 15982 16791 17597 18401 19202 19983 20744 21503 22260 23016 23770 24521 25272 26020 26769 27516 28262 29006 Spousal Support % of bonus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i - i —-it-2 i - i-inr 2 Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Time: 11:01:23 Superior Court of California County of Marin Annual bonus paid to Mother Total CS Total SS (adjusted) 0 15805 16661 17514 18363 19288 20220 21156 22050 22923 23793 24659 25450 26209 26966 27720 28473 29293 30111 30927 31735 32541 33345 34147 34928 35689 36448 37205 37960 38714 39466 40216 40965 41713 42461 43207 © 43951 R = recipient of support 0 oo o oo oc eoelUlcWCcUOCCcUOCUCOCCcOCcOCUCOOCUCUCOCCcOCUCOUC OC OCcCOCCOoO co eo co eo coco Cc olccolcoclUlcrOlClcUWOWlUcUOUUCOlUO OFF Date: 06/03/26

10002450 muller xspouse.xsp Bonus amounts from: 0 Mother's Bonus 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 90000 95000 400000 105000 110000 115000 120000 125000 130000 135000 140000 145000 150000 155000 160000 165000 170000 175000 180000 to: Xspouse 2026-1-CA ANNUAL BONUS INCOME MOTHER (0 = default steps) 200000 Step: 5000 Additional Cost to Mother Child Support % of bonus 0.00 5.92 6.13 6.22 6.25 6.27 6.27 6.26 6.26 6.25 6.24 6.21 6.18 6.15 6.10 6.05 6.00 5.96 5.92 5.89 5.85 5,82 5.79 5.76 5.73 5.70 5.67 5.65 5.62 5.60 5.57 5.55 5.53 5.51 5.49 5.47 5.46 $ 0 296 613 932 4250 1566 1880 2193 2503 2812 3119 3417 3707 3996 4268 4535 4801 5066 5329 5592 5853 6113 6370 6622 6873 7124 7373 7621 7869 8115 8361 8606 8850 9094 9336 9579 9821 Spousal Support % of bonus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 co ogoo co gooococicocjcooooooococicocoocilcececlcmcOCUCcUOCUCcUOCCcOCUCcUOcCUC OlUcCOUUCOULUCOULUCOUlUDH Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Time: 11:02:11 Superior Court of California County of Marin Annual bonus paid to Father Total CS Total SS (adjusted) OR 14648 14332 14012 13694 13378 13064 12752 12441 12133 11825 11527 11237 10949 10676 40409 10144 9879 9615 9353 9092 R 8831 R 8574 R 8322 R 8071 R 7821 R 7572 R 7323 R 7076 R 6829 R 6584 R 6338 R 6094 R 5851 R 5608 R 5366 R 5124 R R = recipient of support AAA ADA ADA AADADAAA ADA ADA AAA 0 oooocococoocoomcoeclclcocmUcCOCCCUOUcCUCCCcCOCcCcOCUCcUOlUCUODUCcUOCUcOCcUOCCc OC WUC OCUCcOCCc OCC OUCODUCcUOCCcCOCUCOUUCUcOUUcOCUcUOULcOlLULCO OFF Date: 06/03/26