Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim R. Hubbard, Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed. Motion to augment record. Denied.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: O'leary, Acting P. J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In this marital dissolution proceeding, Curtis Carter appeals from an order on an order to show cause (OSC) regarding modification of spousal support filed by Janet Carter.*fn1 Curtis argues the family court judge was biased against him and favored Janet because she is "a Caucasian female attorney practicing in the same courthouse." He also argues the family court engaged in a "Cover-Up" by ordering that exhibits attached to his joint list of exhibits be returned to him pending any appeal, in order, he claims, to prevent public access to the documents.
These are serious allegations and we treat them seriously. We have fully considered Curtis's appellate brief and reviewed the appellant's appendix in depth. There is no evidence of bias or a coverup. The order on the OSC did not grant Janet all the relief she requested and did not result in lowering her spousal support obligation. The trial courts routinely order the return of exhibits to the parties in civil cases because the courts lack the facilities to store them. We therefore affirm.
Curtis also appeals from a ruling on a submitted matter entered on March 13, 2009. That ruling was not immediately appealable, but had to be challenged as part of an appeal from the judgment of dissolution entered in April 2009. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) The notice of appeal, filed in December 2009, was untimely as to the March 13, 2009 ruling and to the judgment of dissolution. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a), (b).) Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the appeal.
Curtis filed a motion to augment the record with a set of form interrogatories and attorney billing records. Those materials already appear in the appellant's appendix at tab O and at tab S. The motion to augment the record is therefore denied.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE FAMILY COURT
Janet and Curtis were married in October 1999. Janet is an attorney and the principal shareholder of The Advocate's Legal Center Inc. Curtis is a writer and at the time of trial was employed part time by LA Fitness International, LLC.
Janet filed for legal separation in March 2008. A trial was held in February 2009. In his trial brief, Curtis asserted Janet was "an 'Abusive Wife' engaging in various 'Domestic Violence' areas." (Boldface omitted.) At trial, Curtis submitted evidence he contended substantiated his claims of physical and emotional abuse. Both Janet and Curtis testified at trial. Curtis requested spousal support. The family court took the matter under submission on February 19, 2009.
On March 13, 2009, the family court issued a "Decision of the Court on Submitted Matter." The decision divided property and debts, with reimbursements to community property as necessary, and confirmed ownership of separate property. The court held that Curtis was entitled to one-half of ...