Marriage of Whiteaker CA2/6

Filed 3/23/21 Marriage of Whiteaker CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of TRAVIS 2d Civ. No. B303969 WHITEAKER and MICHELLE (Super. Ct. No. SD042529) WHITEAKER. (Ventura County)

TRAVIS WHITEAKER,

Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE WHITEAKER,

Respondent.

Michelle and Travis Whiteaker married in 2005 and divorced in 2012. Travis left his job in 2019 and requested an order ending his monthly child support payments to Michelle.1 A year of contentious litigation resulted in the trial court’s deciding

We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid 1

confusion. No disrespect is intended.

that neither spouse would pay support to the other. In so ordering, however, the trial court directed Travis to pay Michelle $50,000 in attorney’s fees as sanctions for his misconduct during the proceedings. (Family Code section 271.)2 Travis appeals the sanctions order contending it constitutes an unreasonable financial burden. We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s orders including the finding that he has sufficient financial resources to pay. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Michelle and Travis divorced in 2012 after seven years of marriage. During that time Travis served as a deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and had paid court- ordered child support to Michelle for their three minor daughters. LASD reassigned Travis to a civilian position in 2016 after he injured his hand on duty. He took a four-month personal leave in 2018 to attend court dates and other appointments related to his ongoing custody dispute with Michelle. When he attempted to return to work, LASD told him his former position was no longer available. Travis filed a request for order (RFO) seeking to reduce his child support payments to zero because he was no longer employed by LASD. He testified he had recently started a career in real estate using capital invested by his current wife, Elizabeth. He disclosed property interests in several states but purported to make little or no income after deducting business expenses. The matter was heard over two days and included Michelle’s request for attorney’s fees in excess of $100,000. The trial court set child support at zero for both parents; and, in a supplemental ruling, granted Michelle’s request for