Theis v. Theis CA2/2
Filed 9/25/23 Theis v. Theis CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
JILL A. THEIS, B320844
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BD566197)
MARK E. THEIS,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bruce Iwasaki, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of James R. Eliaser and James R. Eliaser for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Ron Rale, Ron Alan Rale; Law Offices of Joel S. Seidel and Joel Stuart Seidel for Defendant and Respondent.
________________________________________
Appellant Jill Theis (Jill) appeals from a March 7, 2022 order denying her postjudgment requests for orders to modify spousal support, to divide a purportedly unadjudicated community asset, and for attorney fees and sanctions against her former spouse, Mark Theis (Mark). Jill also challenges an attorney fees award against her as a sanction under Family Code section 271.1 We affirm the March 7, 2022 order and the sanctions award. BACKGROUND Request to modify spousal support On November 22, 2019, Jill filed a request for order (RFO) to modify spousal support, which had previously been set at zero pursuant to a stipulated judgment entered on October 22, 2013 (the 2013 stipulated judgment).2 In a declaration filed in support of her request, Jill stated that she received on average $10,000 per month in dividends and interest but her monthly living expenses were approximately $14,000. Jill stated in her income and expense declaration that she had $5,600,000 in cash assets. In his responsive declaration to Jill’s request, Mark averred that before December 2020 he had cash assets of approximately $500,000 before receiving bonuses from his employment as a branch manager at Golden Empire Mortgage. Request for order to divide unadjudicated asset On November 23, 2020, Jill filed an RFO to divide a purportedly unadjudicated community asset—HMS Capital. Jill alleged that during the marriage, the parties owned and operated HMS Capital, a mortgage brokerage business. Jill further alleged that although Mark closed HMS Capital before the parties filed for dissolution of their marriage in 2012, he had since reopened the business. In his responsive declaration, Mark stated that he owned and operated HMS Capital before the marriage and continued to do so until
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)