Monday, July 20, 2026
Page 3
Gifts to Adult Daughter Weren’t ‘Income’ for Purpose of Calculating Child Support—C.A.
Justice Yegan Says Judge Erred in Ordering Ex-Wife to Refund ‘Huge Sum’ of Child Support Because Family Law Cases Are Equitable, Woman Lacks Funds
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A mother’s gifts totaling more than $1.8 million over a 10-year period did not constitute “income” to be taken into account in assessing child support to be paid to be paid to the daughter by her ex-husband because the payments were not steady and certain ones, the Court of Appeal for this district has held, adding that an order that “huge” sums be returned to the former spouse was improper because woman doesn’t have the money.
Acting Presiding Justice Kenneth Yegan authored the unpublished opinion, filed Thursday. The amount that San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Erin M. Childs ordered appellant Jeanne Brown Bozzano to pay back does not appear in the publicly filed redacted opinion in the case nor in the appellate briefs.
The ex-husband, Lino Bozzano, died on March 26, 2025. His second wife, Angela Leigh Mancuso, was substituted as the respondent.
Loans vs. Gifts
Jeanne Bozzano contended that the monies from her mother, Linda Fromm, were loans, not income, while Mancuso insisted the payments were gifts. Yegan said substantial evidence supports Childs’s conclusion that they were gifts but, he wrote, that doesn’t mean they can be classed as income, explaining:
“The relevant case law makes clear that, in order for gifts to a parent to constitute income available for support, the gifts must be ‘a regular, recurrent monetary benefit to the parent….The gifts here were not regular. Based on the trial court’s calculation of the annual gifts, they were highly irregular….”
Noting that family law proceedings are equitable in nature, he continued:
“In addition, the trial court’s ruling was inequitable in view of appellant’s dire financial situation. The trial court ruling required her to pay a huge sum of back child support that she could not possibly pay. She would never be able to pay unless her mother gave her additional money.”
Yet, Yegan said, Fromm “had no duty to support her grandchildren.”
Appellant’s Opening Brief
The holding echoes the reasoning put forth by Jeanne Bozzano’s attorney, John L. Dodd of Tustin. He set forth in the opening brief on appeal:
“Jeanne is being punished because of her mother’s generosity, saddled with retroactive support obligations which she has no possible prospect of paying. There was no substantial evidence Linda was sufficiently wealthy as to continue that generosity indefinitely into the future, or that she would if she could. Imposing this obligation on Jeanne was unjust…, requiring the order be vacated.”
He went on to say:
“The trial court’s ruling in this case undermines California’s public policy and discourages parents from voluntarily supporting adult disabled children….[T]he trial court found Jeanne unemployable….It was undisputed Linda provided Jeanne funds to enable her daughter to obtain necessary medical and therapeutic services and the necessities of life, as well as to defend against the barrage of litigation pursued by Lino.
Discourages Gifts
Dodd continued:
“The trial court’s ruling undermines the public policy interest of encouraging parents to support their disabled adult children to avoid those children becoming dependents of the state. Moreover, Linda is now discouraged from further providing for Jeanne, increasing the chances that Jeanne will become even more impoverished and entirely reliant on the state.”
Although the case is identified on the Judicial Council website as Marriage of Angela M. and Jeanne B., B338128, there was no marriage between Angela Mancuso and Jeanne Bozzano. The case previously bore the caption, Bozzano v. Bozzano.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company