Ex-Wife Appeared To Get Large Sums of Cash From Casino Business and Parents.
Carol Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress.
In Marriage of Aguina & Kang, Case No. E057770 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife was ordered to pay temporary needs-based fees to ex-husband of $10,000 under Family Code sections 2030/2032.
Her appeal did not surmount the deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Both spouses presented somewhat screwy financial information to the lower court. Ex-wife seemed to get large amounts of cash from a Japanese casino business and her parents, while ex-husband had some rental income and apparently made ends meet in some mysterious way. The lower court found he had monthly expenses of $5,070 and she had monthly expenses of $7,500, with both somehow being able to make ends meet. Based on the large cash sums ex-wife was able to obtain, in tandem with the fact she had paid $26,000 to her attorney and ex-husband had paid $20,000 to his attorney based on a personal loan, there was enough of a disparity to justify a pendente lite award to level the playing field for ex-husband’s benefit.