Page 1
C.A. Affirms Order Appointing Receiver to Collect Past Due Support From TV Chef
By a METNEWS Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has affirmed an order for the appointment of a receiver to gather up assets of television personality Cat Cora to satisfy her obligation to make past-due spousal and child support payments to her former wife, rejecting her contention that under case law, such an appointment may not be made for sake of debt collection where there has been no effort to duck creditors.
That rule doesn’t apply, Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert of Div. Six wrote in an unpublished opinion filed Tuesday, where support payments are being sought. Aside from that, there is evidence, Gilbert said, that Cora has attempted to thwart the collection efforts by ex-spouse Jennifer Cora on behalf of herself and the four children.
It was through in vitro fertilization that the children were conceived. The two women, each of whom gave birth, lived together for 17 years including the period from their marriage in 2013 until their separation in 2015.
They were divorced in 2016. At present, the opinion recites, Cat Cora owes $47,500 in spousal support, $20,590 in child support, and $50,000 in attorney fees.
|
|
|
CAT CORA Television chef |
‘Celebrity Chef’
Gilbert termed Cat Cora—referred to in the opinion as “Catherine” Cora—“a celebrity chef with an interest in a number of businesses.” She was the first woman chef on the Food Network’s “Iron Chef America,” appearing on that show from 2005-2012, and has since appeared on various other programs, written books, and launched 18 restaurants.
But now, she claims, COVID-19 has ruined the restaurant businesses, she is on the verge of bankruptcy, and is living off of $1,800 per month in unemployment compensation and scant income from an inheritance. She can’t afford to pay the court-ordered support, Cat Cora contends.
Jennifer Cora maintains that without the support, she will be homeless and the children will suffer “extraordinary hardship and grief.” She asserts that her former spouse maintains two homes— one in in Beverly Hills, the other in Santa Barbara—is living lavishly, and is hiding assets.
Feb. 4 Opinion
The obligor argued that under Medipro Medical Staffing LLC v. Certified Nursing Registry, Inc. , decided last Feb. 4 by Div. Two of this district’s Court of Appeal, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Anderle’s order for a receiver was improper. In that case, Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt wrote:
“Does a trial court abuse that discretion if it appoints a receiver to aid in the collection of a money judgment where the record contains no evidence that the judgment debtors had obfuscated or frustrated the creditor’s collection efforts and no evidence that less intrusive collection methods were inadequate or ineffective? We hold it does.”
He went on to say that “the appointment of a receiver to enforce a money judgment is reserved for ‘exceptional’ circumstances where the judgment creditor’s conduct makes a receiver necessary—and hence ‘proper’ ” and that the absence of substantial evidence showing such a necessity meant that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Edward B. Moreton abused his discretion in making such an appointment.
Gilbert’s Opinion
“Medipro is distinguishable,” Gilbert said in Tuesday’s opinion, explaining:
“[W]e are not concerned here with an ordinary money judgment. We are concerned with an order for spousal and child support. Support orders have a special place in the law.”
He noted that Anderle made a finding as to the devastating detriment to Jennifer Cora and the children if the support payments are not made, and commented:
“Catherine points to no similar findings in Medipro. The trial court must be given much greater latitude in imposing a receivership to enforce support orders than in the case of an ordinary judgment.”
The presiding justice added that “here there was evidence that Catherine obfuscated or frustrated Jennifer’s collection efforts.”
He said that in a contempt proceeding, it was found that she had failed to produce adequate financial information for use by Jennifer Cora’s accountant and that her income and expense declaration was inadequate. The fact that neither the contempt proceeding nor an attempted bank levy resulted in the back spousal support and child support being paid points to the necessity of appointing a receiver.
Support Payments Needed
“Jennifer and the children need support,” Gilbert declared. “They cannot afford to wait while Jennifer tries various collection measures against a party who is willing and able to frustrate those attempts.”
Cat Cora asserted that Anderle’s order that she turn over all communications to the receiver is so broad as to include documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or marital privilege. (She was subsequently remarried and divorced.)
Gilbert responded:
“If Catherine has any correspondence she deems privileged, she can apply to the trial court to appoint a referee to resolve the matter. Catherine cites no authority that the order violates her right to privacy.”
The case is Cora v. Cora, B308834.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company