Marriage of Feng and Wu CA2/4

Filed 10/29/13 Marriage of Feng and Wu CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re Marriage of YUE FANG FENG and B246536 FRANK WU. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD534075)

YUE FANG FENG,

Appellant,

v.

FRANK WU,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B. Scott Silverman, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Steve Luan and Steve Luan for Appellant. Law Offices of Aijun Zhang and Aijun Zhang for Respondent.

_________________________________

This is an appeal from a family court order requiring appellant Yue Fang Feng to pay respondent Frank Wu’s attorney fees in a dissolution action. Appellant argues the court erred in concluding that she could access an investment in a foreign company to pay the fees. She claims the money, while in her name, belongs to a third party. Respondent presents multiple documents demonstrating appellant’s ownership of the investment. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the court’s order, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The parties married in 1988. They entered into a separation agreement in 1997, but lived together until 2010. In October 2010, appellant filed a petition for dissolution, although the parties dispute the precise date of separation. As the action proceeded, respondent filed an order to show cause on April 25, 2012 requesting monthly spousal 1 support and attorney fees pursuant to Family Code section 2030. He claimed appellant had sufficient funds to provide monthly support and attorney fees, including a $269,500 investment in a foreign corporation, “Shanghai Kai Pu On Wood Co. Ltd.” Appellant filed her opposition on June 12, 2012. In respondent’s June 20, 2012 responsive declaration, he again argued appellant could access her foreign investment. On December 10, 2012, respondent served appellant with a third supplemental declaration in support of his earlier motion for attorney fees. It provided additional documentation of appellant’s $269,500 investment, which revealed the company’s true name as “Shanghai Qamples Inc. Ltd.” (Shanghai Qamples). At the December 18, 2012 hearing, the trial court focused on this investment to determine appellant’s ability to pay respondent’s attorney fees. Her bank statements revealed multiple wire transfers to the company: $100,000 in December 2007, $61,705 in April 2008, $107,810.78 in July 2010, and $110,000 in September 2010. Respondent asserted appellant could “freely access the funds.” In response, appellant claimed that she was “the investor in name only” and that it was “not [her] money.” Instead, she explained, “It’s a long story.