On April 7, 2026, Ayesha Howard filed a sworn affidavit in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing Minnesota Timberwolves star Anthony Edwards of intentionally concealing a California LLC, registered trademarks, a Beverly Hills bank account, and multi-year agency contracts to avoid California jurisdiction in their child support dispute over 18-month-old daughter Aubri. The filing directly challenges a March 2025 ruling that placed jurisdiction in Georgia, and it raises serious questions about asset disclosure duties under California Family Code § 2100 et seq.
The allegations, first reported by Yahoo Sports, center on whether Edwards has sufficient minimum contacts with California to trigger long-arm jurisdiction under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10. If Howard persuades the court, the case could shift from Georgia — where child support guidelines cap high-earner calculations — to California, where guideline support for a player earning an estimated $42 million in annual salary plus endorsements could be dramatically higher.
Key Facts
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| What happened | Howard filed sworn affidavit alleging intentional concealment of California assets |
| When | April 7, 2026 |
| Where | Los Angeles Superior Court, California |
| Who is affected | Anthony Edwards, Ayesha Howard, daughter Aubri (18 months old) |
| Key statutes | Cal. Fam. Code § 2104, § 2107, § 3400, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 |
| Prior ruling | March 2025 California order placed jurisdiction in Georgia |
| Practical impact | Could reopen jurisdiction and dramatically increase child support exposure |
Why this matters legally
This filing changes the jurisdictional calculus in high-net-worth interstate child support disputes. Hiding assets to manipulate jurisdiction is not merely a disclosure violation — it can void prior orders and expose the concealing party to sanctions. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 2107, a court that finds intentional non-disclosure of material assets can set aside judgments, award attorney's fees, and impose monetary sanctions equal to 100% of the undisclosed asset's value.
Jurisdiction in interstate family law cases is governed by two federal-uniform statutes: the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified at Cal. Fam. Code § 3400 et seq., and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), codified at Cal. Fam. Code § 5700 et seq. UIFSA § 201 allows California to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident parent who "engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act," or who maintains "systematic and continuous" contacts with California. A Beverly Hills bank account, a California-registered LLC, and ongoing agency contracts performed in Los Angeles could each independently satisfy the minimum-contacts test articulated in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
How California law handles hidden assets in support cases
California imposes the strictest asset disclosure regime in the United States for family law matters. Cal. Fam. Code § 2104 requires each party to serve a Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure identifying all assets, debts, and income sources — even those the disclosing party believes are separate property or outside the court's reach. Failure to disclose is not cured by later production; it triggers mandatory sanctions.
The leading California case on this point, In re Marriage of Rossi (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 34, awarded the non-disclosing spouse's entire $1.3 million lottery winnings to the other spouse as a 100% sanction. That decision remains the benchmark: courts treat concealment as fraud on the court, and the penalty can exceed the value of the hidden asset itself.
For child support specifically, Cal. Fam. Code § 4058 defines "annual gross income" expansively to include income from any source — salaries, bonuses, endorsement deals, LLC distributions, royalties from trademarks, and imputed income from assets. A parent who shields income through a closely-held California LLC does not escape the guideline calculation; California courts routinely pierce single-member LLCs to reach distributions, as established in In re Marriage of Berger (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1070.
If the Los Angeles court credits Howard's affidavit, three consequences follow. First, the March 2025 jurisdictional ruling could be vacated under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) for extrinsic fraud, which has no six-month limit when fraud is alleged. Second, Edwards could face sanctions up to 100% of the concealed asset value under § 2107. Third, California could assume continuing exclusive jurisdiction over child support under UIFSA § 205, locking the forum in California for the remainder of Aubri's minority.
Practical takeaways for California parents
-
Disclose everything, including assets you believe are outside California's reach. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 2104, the duty covers worldwide assets — not just those physically located in the state.
-
Document every California contact when opposing jurisdiction. A single bank account, LLC filing, or recurring business trip can establish the minimum contacts required under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10.
-
Request a Request for Production of Documents and a Schedule of Assets and Debts (Form FL-142) early. These tools, governed by Cal. Fam. Code § 2103, create a sworn record that later non-disclosure can be measured against.
-
Preserve evidence of asset concealment in writing. Courts require "clear and convincing evidence" of intentional non-disclosure under § 2107, and contemporaneous documentation is often the difference between a sanction and a denial.
-
Act within the statute-of-limitations windows. A motion to set aside a support order for fraud must generally be filed within one year of discovery under Cal. Fam. Code § 3691, though extrinsic fraud claims under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) may extend longer.
-
Consider forensic accounting for high-net-worth cases. California allows the court to order the non-disclosing party to pay the forensic accountant's fees under Cal. Fam. Code § 2030.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much child support could Anthony Edwards owe under California law?
California uses a statewide guideline formula in Cal. Fam. Code § 4055 that considers both parents' incomes and timeshare. For a parent earning $42 million annually in salary plus endorsements, guideline support for one child could exceed $150,000 per month before any above-guideline adjustments for the child's extraordinary needs.
Can California take jurisdiction if the child lives in Georgia?
Yes, California can assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident parent under UIFSA, codified at Cal. Fam. Code § 5700.201, if that parent has minimum contacts with California — such as owning a California LLC, maintaining a Beverly Hills bank account, or performing contracts in Los Angeles. The child's residence does not control personal jurisdiction over the parent.
What happens if a parent hides assets in a California divorce or support case?
Under Cal. Fam. Code § 2107, a court can award the non-disclosing parent's entire undisclosed asset to the other party as a sanction. In In re Marriage of Rossi (2001), the concealing spouse lost 100% of a $1.3 million asset. Courts can also award attorney's fees and void prior judgments obtained through concealment.
Can a March 2025 jurisdictional ruling be reopened in 2026?
Yes, if fraud is alleged. Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) and the doctrine of extrinsic fraud, a prior order procured by intentional concealment can be set aside even after the standard six-month window. Family Code § 2122 permits set-aside for fraud up to one year from discovery, and longer for perjury claims.
Does owning a California LLC automatically create California jurisdiction?
A California-registered LLC is strong evidence of purposeful availment under International Shoe but is not automatic. Courts examine the totality of contacts — LLC registration, bank accounts, contracts performed in California, and physical presence — under the minimum-contacts test in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10.
Getting help
High-asset interstate child support cases require counsel experienced in both UCCJEA and UIFSA practice. California residents facing jurisdictional disputes or suspected asset concealment can find a California family law attorney through our directory of exclusive county attorneys.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.