Legal Opinion

Look v. Penovatz

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided April 8, 2019No. H044754PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGreenwood, P.J.

*63Appellant William Look, Jr. appeals an order of the trial court denying his request for reimbursement under *64Family Code section 39501 for funds he expended while Respondent Bela Penovatz's then-minor son lived in Look's household. During the *779relevant period, Penovatz (the child's father) paid child support, pursuant to a court order, to the child's mother, who cohabitated with Look. As Penovatz satisfied his child support obligation under the law, we conclude Look was not entitled to reimbursement under Family Code section 3950,2 and thus affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Williams v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Britt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kaileh v. San Francisco Residential Rent etc. CA1/3California Court of Appeal · 2020
  2. Phan v. Knight Sacramento SU Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API