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 Akbar Fathali and Rozita Dayani. v. Rozita Dayani

September 7, 2011

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AKBAR FATHALI AND ROZITA DAYANI. AKBAR FATHALI, APPELLANT,
v.
ROZITA DAYANI, RESPONDENT.



(Super. Ct. No. FL342006)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,j.

Marriage of Fathali and Dayani CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Akbar Fathali appeals from a family court order on Fathali's motion for modification of child support and other issues, as well as Rozita Dayani's motion to remove restrictions on travel with their child. Fathali contends, among other things, that Dayani was not truthful in her testimony to the family court, and that the facts do not support the family court order. He also challenges a $7,500 rent credit awarded to Dayani, and argues that the family court should have admitted into evidence a certified translated judgment of the Iran Court.

Fathali's appellate brief lacks the required legal analysis and citation to authority, and he fails to establish error. We will affirm the family court order.

BACKGROUND

The parties were married on August 5, 1998. Their only child was born in 2001.*fn1 Fathali filed for dissolution of marriage on August 9, 2005, and an order for custody and visitation was entered on October 1, 2007. The parties subsequently filed various motions to modify custody and visitation.

On March 10, 2010, the family court held a hearing on Fathali's motion for modification of child support and other issues, as well as Dayani's motion to remove restrictions previously placed on the parties' ability to take the child out of the country. The family court took the matters under submission.

On March 16, 2010, the family court issued its order after hearing. The family court denied Fathali's requests for makeup custody time with the minor child, for modification of the pickup and delivery of the child, or to lift the restrictions placed on Fathali's use of the child's passport. However, the family court ordered return of the child's passport and imposed conditions on travel with the child outside the United States. The family court found that Fathali was entitled to "an additional credit of $5,510.00" for payment of a debt, offset by an equitable credit due Dayani of $7,500 for the time Fathali remained in the family residence rent free postjudgment. In addition, the family court ordered Fathali to seek work and ordered Dayani to pay Fathali $671 per month in child support retroactive to February 3, 2010.

DISCUSSION

I As a preliminary procedural matter, Fathali filed a motion to augment the record on appeal on March 4, 2011. Without explanation, the motion sought to include five documents in the record: a "test email" reflecting a date of March 15, 2010; a health insurance hearing notice dated July 16, 2010; a letter from the San Joaquin County Department of Child Support Services dated September 23, 2010; page one of a two-page notice of hearing from the San Joaquin County Department of Child Support Services dated November 30, 2010; and purported e-mail correspondence between plaintiff and defendant dated April 2 and 3, 2010.

Rule 8.155, subdivision (a)(1)(A) of the California Rules of Court provides that, "At any time, on motion of a party or its own motion, the reviewing court may order the record augmented to include: (A) Any document filed or lodged in the case in superior court."

"The reason behind the rules for augmentation of a record is to make the record conform to the truth, so that an appellate court, in passing on the acts of a trial court, can have before it the proceedings upon which the trial court ...


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.