From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Estevez v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 470 (1994)
Emilio Estevez (defendant) and Carey L. Salley (plaintiff) had two children together. Estevez and Salley entered into a court agreement under which Estevez would pay Salley $3,500 per month in child support and pay for the children’s medical expenses. In addition to complying with the agreement, Estevez paid for the children’s childcare, private education, various vacations, and a housekeeper. Additionally, Estevez’s parents paid for a house in Malibu for Salley and the children. In 1993, Salley petitioned the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (defendant) for a child-support modification. Salley acknowledged that she and the children were receiving over $14,000 per month in support from Estevez. However, Salley sought a modification because the additional support was voluntary and could be freely discontinued. Pursuant to the petition, Salley requested the production of almost 20 different documents to show Estevez’s income for the purpose of applying the child-support guidelines. Estevez stipulated that he earned approximately $1.4 million per year, which would require him to pay $14,500 per month in child support if the guidelines were applied. Estevez claimed that under White v. Marciano, discovery of his income was precluded because it was irrelevant as he was willing to comply with any child-support amount that the court determined was reasonable. Salley argued that after White v. Marciano, the California legislature passed statutory provisions abrogating the holding. Salley alleged that the court was required to calculate child support using the obligator’s income and then could decide to deviate from the calculation if the obligator was an extraordinary high-income earner. The court ruled that Salley’s interpretation was correct and, after reducing the number of documents Salley had originally requested, granted the motion to produce the documents. Estevez appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kitching, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 606,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.