Wednesday, November 12, 2025
Page 1
C.A. Tosses Appeal Because Ex-Husband Has Failed to Pay More Than $1 Million in Fees
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on Monday dismissed the appeal by an ex-husband from a sua order to pay his former spouse $500,000 from the sale of a residence to partially satisfy spurned orders to reimburse her attorney fees.
In scuttling the appeal by investment counselor Robert O’Hill, Justice Maurice Sanchez cited O’Hill’s sizable debt to respondent Andrea (“Andi”) Rea O’Hill, saying in Monday’s unpublished opinion:
“We grant Audi’s request to dismiss the appeal. The record reflects a history of Robert’s willful noncompliance with the trial court’s orders, resulting in substantial arrearages—over $I million—in attorney fees owed to Andi. This noncompliance is particularly glaring in light of the trial court’s findings regarding Robert’s immense wealth, together with the fact that he has paid his own fees in full. Because Robert has defied the very court whose orders he now asks us to review, we exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal.”
Disentitlement Doctrine
Sanchez went on to say:
“The disentitlement doctrine is based on the equitable principle that a party cannot seek assistance from a court while simultaneously standing in an attitude of contempt to its legal orders and processes….A formal judgment of contempt is not a prerequisite; we look to the record to determine whether a party’s disobedience is willful….
“Here, the history of Robert’s persistent violation of the court’s attorney fee orders, combined with his immense wealth and full payment of his own attorney fees, clearly demonstrates that his violation is willful.”
The case is Marriage of O’Hill, G063223.
Second Decision
Sanchez also authored the unpublished opinion, filed Monday, in O’Hill Capital v. Phillips. The ex-husband’s Newport Beach company was joined in the family law proceeding for the purpose of enforcing the attorney fee orders.
Andi O’Hill brought various causes of action against O’Hill Capital in family law court. A demurrer was sustained without leave to amend but the order specified that the ex-wife could bring her claims “in any civil proceeding.”
O’Hill Capital then sued Ando O’Hill and her lawyer, John Benedict Phillips of the Irvine firm of Phillips Whisnant Gazin Gorczyca & Curtin for malicious prosecution. Orange Superior Court Judge David A. Hoffer granted an anti-SLAPP motion and ordered payment of 47,590 in attorney fees.
No Favorable Termination
In an unpublished opinion affirming the orders, Sanchez said that the second prong of the statute—a showing by the plaintiff of a probability of prevailing on the merits—was not met by O’Hill Capital. There must be a showing that a previous action was terminated in favor of the party suing for malicious prosecution, he recited, commenting:
“The family law court’s resolution of the complaint against O’Hill Capital does not satisfy this requirement. Although the court dismissed the complaint ‘with prejudice,’’ the court’s ‘reservation’ allowing Andi to pursue her claims in civil court leaves no doubt about what it meant: Audi’s complaint exceeded what she could pursue in family law court, but by permitting Andi to pursue those claims in another court, the family law court plainly did not pass on the substantive merits of Audi’s claims. No reasonable court would send her to another court to pursue her claims if it had already ruled that the claims lacked substantive merit.”
The amount of the fees that were ordered were declared to be reasonable.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company