Monday, May 11, 2015

In Re Marriage of Horner (Cal. Ct. App. - May 6, 2015)

The Court of Appeal kicks a dead horse, but for a good cause:

"Because we affirm the judgment, there is no need to discuss Penny’s argument that the case should be remanded for retrial before a different judge. However, to the extent Penny insinuates Judge Mayfield was less than impartial, we must disagree. In fact, the judge explained at some length in her statement of decision dated April 19, 2012, the cogent reasons why she found some of Penny’s evidence was not credible. Significantly, Tom’s daughter testified that Penny said she wanted to make the divorce as expensive as possible so Tom would not want to go through with it and they could be reunited. The judge’s doubts about Penny’s conduct were grounded in the evidence, not prejudice. Judge Mayfield also fully explained her finding that Penny’s attorneys had engaged in “obstreperous and unprofessional conduct,” and had unnecessarily increased the cost of litigation. We are satisfied the judge’s rulings did not reflect a lack of impartiality.

The judgment is affirmed. Tom is awarded his costs on appeal."

In short, Penny should stop complaining about the trial judge.  The fault was hers, not Judge Mayfield's.