(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 090615)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lambden, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appellant Perry Narancic (Narancic) appears in propria persona in this appeal. Narancic contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for modification of child support and other relief for lack of jurisdiction, and asks that we reverse this denial and remand the matter back to the trial court for adjudication of the merits of his motion.
During the pendency of this appeal, respondent Alexandra Gadzo (Gadzo; identified as Alexandra Narancic in the caption) moved for sanctions, contending that Narancic's appeal is frivolous, and for costs of appeal as the prevailing party.
We affirm the court's order, deny Gadzo's motion for sanctions, and award her costs of appeal.
In 2006, a judgment for the dissolution of the marriage of Narancic and Gadzo, parents of two small children, was entered in San Mateo Superior Court.
On February 23, 2007, the court issued a written order that ruled on a number of matters between the parties, who were both represented by counsel at the time.*fn1 The court ordered that an order to show cause concerning a set aside of the marital settlement agreement would be heard in a short cause hearing in May 2007, and that an order to show cause concerning return of a computer would be heard in a further hearing in June 2007.
The court then addressed an order to show cause concerning modification of custody and child support. Regarding custody, the court made certain rulings pending the outcome of a criminal case against Narancic. Regarding child support, the court ordered that, effective January 1, 2007, Narancic would pay $2,774 a month based on a "DissoMaster Calculation" that included certain assumptions, apparently an increase from his previous payment of $1,500 a month. The court stated, "Jurisdiction is reserved to modify the DissoMaster Calculation retroactively to January 1, 2007, since the court arbitrarily made certain assumptions which may or may not have in fact been accurate." It then stated the order to show cause would be heard in a short cause hearing in June 2007. At the time, Narancic did not have a pending motion before the court to modify the court's order.
A trial between Narancic and Gadzo was set for April 28 through 30, 2008. On March 28, 2008, counsel for Gadzo wrote a letter to the court, with a copy to Narancic, in which he stated: "The parties have agreed to take this matter off calendar since Mr. Narancic will need additional time to file a separate lawsuit against third parties and Alexandra Gadzo involving the same issues and attempt to consolidate both lawsuits for trial in your department."
The trial was taken off calendar. The parties do not dispute that this included the question of the possible retroactive ...