Broughton v. Mills CA4/3

Filed 1/15/14 Broughton v. Mills CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TRACY BROUGHTON,

Respondent, G048153

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08FL107098)

CHRISTOPHER MILLS, OPINION

Appellant;

COUNTY OF ORANGE,

Respondent.

Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Duane Neary, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Walter J. Sawicki for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent Tracy Broughton. No appearance for Respondent County of Orange. * * *

In this child support case, Christopher Mills appeals from the court’s postjudgment orders requiring him to pay (1) attorney fees to Tracy Broughton, and (2) expert accountant fees to an Evidence Code section 730 evaluator. Because Mills has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, we are unable to evaluate his contentions and therefore we affirm the orders.

FACTS

The appellate record is exceedingly sparse. The docket reflects that in April 2012, Mills filed a “motion — modification.” In Mills’s opening brief on appeal, he informs us that the motion was for “downward adjustment of child support.” But the appellate record does not contain any of the moving or responding papers on the modification request. Apparently more than six months elapsed without a hearing on Mills’s order to show cause (OSC), because in November 2012, Broughton filed an OSC seeking a forensic accountant, a vocational evaluation, and attorney fees. Broughton’s declaration attached to her OSC recited some history. In October 2012, “[t]he department [of child support services] and [Broughton] requested [a] forensic accountant, presented evidence to the court and the court [g]ranted the request for the appointment of a forensic accountant and further ordered the defend[a]nt to pay the accountant’s fees. The Defend[a]nt refused to comply and never responded to the department regarding this order. The same issues are at hand currently and nothing has changed since that order; therefore I am requesting a forensic accountant or to take the case off calendar until all of the discovery [d]ocuments are produced and I am able to have an attorney or forensic accountant review the information. This is far too complicated to be done without both.” A separate declaration from an attorney who proposed to represent Broughton stated in part: “I have met with [Broughton] and she has requested that I substitute in as her attorney in this matter. I have quoted her an initial retainer of $6000. After a review of