Modification: Marriage of Zucker

In re the Marriage of

KIM and MARK S. ZUCKER.

KIM ZUCKER,

Appellant,

v.

MARK S. ZUCKER,

Respondent.

No. B281051 (Cons. w B284981)

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BD

546573)

California Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Four

Filed April 1, 2022

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION (CHANGE IN JUDGMENT)

THE COURT:*

The opinion filed March 3, 2022, in the above-entitled matter is ordered MODIFIED as follows:

On page 56, in the first full paragraph, the two references to "child support" are changed to "spousal support."

On page 61, delete the last three full paragraphs and replace them with the following:

After entering a fee order on March 17, 2017, the court's amended fee order, dated May 10, 2017, superseded that order in certain respects and found that "[u]sing $3,539,469 as the fees and expert costs incurred by [Mark] and $3,706,672 as the fees and costs incurred by [Kim], plus $301,046 for court reporting and privately compensated reference judge fees produces total charges incurred by both sides of $7,547,637. Using a 70% share of the total fees to [Mark] as a starting point produces a fee and cost responsibility of $5,283,346. Considering the payment of his own fees, his payments to ARC, his payments to US Legal and the advance of $923,383 for fees and costs to [Kim] means that [Mark] has already paid $4,764,258 of the total fees and costs leaving a balance of $519,088 to reach the 70% amount. This would be the starting point for further contribution of fees to [Kim].

"With a further payment of $1,200,000 [Mark's] total payments would constitute just under 80% of the total fees and costs leaving [Kim] with a responsibility for slightly over 20%. . . . [¶] Based on all of the above the court orders an additional contribution by [Mark] to [Kim's] fees and costs in the sum of $1,200,000, minus a $10,000 reduction representing [Mark's] fees incurred unreasonably as set forth above, estimated fees of [Kim] incurred on the same issue and fees caused by unreasonable delay as set forth above. The net sum is $1,990,000." This latter figure, resulting from an error of arithmetic, was later corrected on May 30, 2017 to $1,190,000.

On page 69, the paragraph under subheading 2 is deleted and replaced with the following:

Relying on the March 17, 2017 fee order, Mark contends the trial court's arithmetic regarding the fee award was in error because the total amount of $5,250,000 minus $4,820,000 is $430,000, not $480,000. Mark's argument is based upon a prior and superseded version of the fee order that was later modified as set forth ante. We therefore reject his argument.

On page 72, the disposition is changed to remove the second full sentence beginning with the words "The attorney fee award is corrected."

These modifications change the judgment.

The petitions for rehearing are DENIED.

WILLHITE, Acting P.J.

COLLINS, J.

CURREY, J.