Marriage of Jones and Ballard CA4/3
Filed 4/16/15 Marriage of Jones and Ballard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re Marriage of JAMES SCOTT JONES and HOLLIE AMBER BALLARD.
JAMES SCOTT JONES, G050152 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14D001171) v. OPINION HOLLIE AMBER BALLARD,
Appellant.
Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Petition granted in part and denied in part. Chavis Law Firm, L. Michelle Chavis and Stephanie Finelli for Appellant. John R. Schilling for Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION This is a dissolution case involving a short, five-year, marriage, no children, a separate property business, an extremely high income on the part of the husband, and no appreciable income on the part of the wife. It comes to us via a premature appeal, which we treat as a de facto writ petition. We conclude the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in not making the initial spousal order retroactive to the date of filing. But we also conclude he could not refuse to award the low-income spouse any funds at all for a forensic accountant, given the virtual certainty the proper litigation of her case will require one. II. FACTS James Scott Jones filed for divorce from his wife Hollie A. Ballard on February 6, 2014. Jones was 45 and Ballard 36, and the marriage had lasted 5 years, 4 months. There are no children. On February 14, eight days after Jones’ filed his petition, Ballard filed what is sometimes called in family law an “initial OSC” or order to show cause proceeding. She asked the court to award her $21,900 in monthly spousal support pending trial. She also asked the court to require Jones to pay the mortgage on the family home in Capistrano Beach where Ballard continued to live, and make the payments on the BMW she had kept. Finally, she sought to have the court require Jones to advance her $30,000 for attorney fees and another $30,000 to retain a forensic accountant. Ballard alleged that Jones is the owner of a business, USD Products, that earns at least $1 million a month. She estimated Jones’ monthly income at $62,000, which works out to $744,000 a year, presumably before taxes. Her moving papers on the request for $30,000 to retain a forensic accountant said she had to retain a forensic accountant because she is “the out-spouse and [Jones] is self-employed.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)