The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull, Acting P.J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 father, Isaac Ozobiani appeals from court orders denying father's motion for reconsideration, and another ordering father to pay $1,937 each month in child support. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
Father has elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the trial in this matter. This is referred to as a "judgment roll" appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
The limited record we have establishes the following: On December 9, 2008, the trial court ordered father to pay to mother, Ann N. Ozobiani, child support for their three minor children totaling $2,658 per month. The court noted in its ruling that the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) was opening an enforcement case against father. The court thus asked DCSS to conduct an audit of father's overall child support arrearages.
In August 2009, the parties appeared before the trial court having received the DCSS's audit of father's arrearages. As reflected in the court's minute order, father and mother stipulated that the audit accurately reflected father owed $19,964.06 in child support arrearages. They further agreed this amount included all Social Security offsets. Accordingly, the court ordered father to increase his monthly arrearage payments to $500 per month beginning in September 2009, and increasing again to $750 per month in January 2010.
On November 20, 2009, father filed a motion to reconsider or set aside the court's prior order. Father failed to indicate which order he was seeking to set aside, but argued the "Motion was filed on [June 28, 2008] to modify support. Court ruling indicated at that time that when issue is [(illegible)] it will be retroactive to the date filed. Give credit also to derivates benefit paid and continues to flow to [mother]. This case may be referred to Dept. 125 in Judge Cecil's court for final review if needed. [¶] . . .[¶]
"I am requesting for reconsideration based on the court ruling on this matter. I have all previous court rulings [(illegible)] this issue of arrears. In Judge Cecil's court, he made a ruling on [February 27, 2009] that stipulated that 'orders relating to child support and spousal support . . . are subject to retroactive modification.'"
On February 11, 2010, Commissioner Harman ordered father to pay to mother $1,937 each month in child support. Commissioner Harman noted in the minute order that father was entitled to an offset for his Social Security benefits totaling $1,047 each month, but the benefits were expected to stop.
Later that same day, father appeared before Judge Mauro, who reissued an order to show cause, compelling the parties to appear for a subsequent hearing on February 18, 2010, noting the hearing was on mother's motion to modify child and spousal support, and seeking attorney fees.
Father also appeared before Commissioner Brody on February 11, 2010, on father's motion for reconsideration, filed November 20, 2009. The minute order from that hearing reads as follows: "Motion for reconsideration denied w/ prejudice. [Father] is ordered not to file any further motions on issues that were stipulated to on [August 24, ...