Marriage of Wilson and Smith CA1/3

Filed 9/30/13 Marriage of Wilson and Smith CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of KAREN WILSON and JEFFREY ANTON SMITH.

KAREN WILSON, Appellant, v. A137560

JEFFREY ANTON SMITH, (San Mateo County Respondent. Super. Ct. No. F362391)

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID G. FINKLESTEIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Mateo County KAREN WILSON, Super. Ct. No. CIV505915) Defendant and Appellant.

In a post-judgment dissolution proceeding, the family court enforced a settlement agreement between Karen Wilson (Wife) and Jeffrey Anton Smith (Husband) for child and spousal support. The court also resolved attorney fee issues relating to an interpleader action filed by Wife‟s former attorneys in which disputed settlement funds were deposited with the court. Wife appeals upon contentions the family court erred in denying her motion to revoke the settlement agreement, granting Husband‟s motion for a partial refund of settlement funds, and granting Wife‟s request for attorney fees in a lesser amount than she sought. Respondents contend the appeal is frivolous and should be

1

summarily dismissed. We deny the request for dismissal but shall affirm the order on the merits. Statement of Facts The parties separated in 1991 after almost nine years of marriage. A judgment of dissolution of marriage was filed in July 1992. The judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement that provided child support for the parties‟ two children as well as spousal support for Wife. Husband failed to make all required payments and, in 1996, the court issued a wage assignment order to enforce monthly support obligations and to collect arrears in excess of $39,000. The record shows no further activity until 2010, when Wife hired the Law Offices of David G. Finkelstein to represent her in an effort to collect unpaid support from Husband. The Finkelstein firm served Husband with notice to appear for a judgment debtor examination. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.110.) The parties settled the debt issue in May 2010, in advance of the scheduled examination. The parties stipulated that Husband “paid most but not all of the spousal support and child support he was court ordered to pay” and, to avoid costs necessary “to determine the true amount of the unpaid support,” negotiated “a full and final settlement of all child and spousal support arrears.” Husband paid Wife $90,000. Husband also agreed to place $40,000 in a trust account, which Wife could draw upon for her educational expenses under specified conditions. The trust funds were to be returned to Husband if Wife did not use the money within a specified time. Husband sent a $40,000 check to the Finkelstein firm, which deposited it in the firm‟s attorney-client trust account in November 2010. A disagreement arose over administration of the trust funds. The Finkelstein firm refused to disperse any funds until the parties signed an agreement for administering the funds and arranged to pay the costs of administration. The Finkelstein firm also sought payment from Wife for its legal representation. In May 2011, the Finkelstein firm filed an interpleader complaint naming Wife and Husband as defendants and depositing into court the disputed $40,000. The firm