Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re the Marriage of William R. Fry and Laurie E. Fry. v. Laurie E. Fry

December 14, 2010

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WILLIAM R. FRY AND LAURIE E. FRY. WILLIAM R. FRY, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURIE E. FRY, RESPONDENT.



(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. FL116319)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bamattre-manoukian, Acting P.J.

Marriage of Fry

CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant William R. Fry (Randy) and respondent Laurie E. Fry (Laurie) were married for over 18 years and had three children.*fn1 In 2003, the parties separated and Randy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. A status-only judgment of dissolution was entered in 2005. Laurie sought temporary child support and spousal support by filing a motion in 2004. After a four-day hearing, the trial court issued its December 5, 2008 statement of decision and order on support issues.

The December 5, 2008 statement of decision and order directed the parties to meet and confer for the purpose of computing Randy's temporary spousal support obligation and required Randy to pay, by December 31, 2008, an unspecified amount of temporary spousal support that the parties were to calculate on the basis of "the common undisputed inputs." The trial court reserved jurisdiction to resolve any remaining disputes regarding the amount of temporary spousal support.

On appeal, Randy seeks reversal of the portion of the December 5, 2008 statement of decision and order that concerns temporary spousal support and a remand "for determination of proper temporary spousal support awards, not to exceed the sum necessary for Laurie to meet her financial needs based upon the pre-separation marital lifestyle." For reasons that we will explain, we determine that Randy seeks review of a non-appealable order, and therefore we will dismiss the appeal.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Randy and Laurie were married on May 11, 1985, and had three children, including Erica, born in 1986; William, born in 1988; and Jacob, born in 1989. On October 10, 2003, Randy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The petition states that the date of separation was the same date, October 10, 2003. A status-only judgment of dissolution was entered on May 19, 2005.

Laurie filed a motion seeking guideline*fn2 child support and spousal support and attorneys fees on December 20, 2004. At that time, William and Jacob were the only minor children. Laurie specifically sought a support award, including an award retroactive to the date the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed, that was "based upon all aspects of [Randy's] income, including all perquisites of his employment and his separate property . . . ." She also sought "consideration of the disparities in the parties' current lifestyles so that she and the minor children can share [Randy's] standard of living. Laurie filed an amended motion on January 26, 2005, that made the same support request. The record does not indicate whether Randy filed opposition to Laurie's motion for child and spousal support.

On June 14, 2006, Laurie filed a trial brief re temporary spousal and child support. She asserted that Randy, the president of the retail chain Fry's Electronics, Inc. (Fry's) and his two brothers "have complete control and the management of vast wealth, as well as of the money they choose to disburse as their income." In addition, according to Laurie, "the Fry brothers have acquired assets, which include but are not limited to, the real estate and buildings from which the Fry's Electronics stores operate, a sheep ranch in New Zealand, a fleet of aircraft that they enjoy for their personal pleasure, an island in the Bahamas, a tract of land in Morgan Hill which they developed as a private golf course with single family homes available for personal or business use, a sports team franchise, a bank in Utah, and a company in the Cayman [I]slands."

In her trial brief, Laurie described herself as a homemaker who lacked both a college education and marketable skills, and who had not worked outside the home since 1985 except for being "a very part-time school aid." During the marriage, she "devoted herself to the rearing of the parties' children" and to maintaining their home. Laurie further asserted that her standard of living had been severely reduced since the parties separated. She claimed that Randy continued to have an extremely luxurious lifestyle while she shopped at Target, and she was unable to provide their children with the lifestyle they had during the marriage and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.