(Super. Ct. No. SDR24781)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.
Marriage of Bobadilla CA3
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Enrique A. Bobadilla (father) appeals from child and spousal support orders claiming that he was denied due process to prove his reduced income in 2010. As a result, father contends the trial court erred in denying father's motions to modify child and spousal support.
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 hearing 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.) On the face of this record, no error has been established. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's orders.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The limited record we have establishes that on June 23, 2011, the trial court heard father's motion to modify child support. Father appeared at the hearing without counsel, Mary K. Bobadilla (mother) was represented by counsel, and the Placer County Department of Child Support Services also appeared through counsel. The court heard testimony and took father's motion under submission.
The trial court subsequently issued a written ruling, concluding that father failed to demonstrate a material change of circumstances to warrant a modification of the prior order for child support. In reaching its decision, the court noted it was "skeptical" of father's explanation regarding his income. Thus, despite father's testimony to the contrary, the court found father continued to receive the same large sums of money from the family business in Mexico that he was receiving in 2009, when the initial order for support was issued.
In his motion to modify child support, father made several other requests for reimbursement from mother. Father wanted mother to reimburse him for the cost of having their child on his health insurance plan, to reimburse him for the tax consequences of not being able to claim their child as a dependent in 2009, and to reimburse him for having to provide duplicate financial documents for the hearing on his motion. The trial court denied each of his requests.
Father also asked the trial court "to relieve him of the obligation to pay $1,800 in costs as ordered by Judge Kearney in 2009." That request was denied as an untimely motion for reconsideration. The court also denied father's request to set a payment plan with respect to the order that he pay mother's attorney fees. Finally, the court set a date to hear father's request to modify spousal support.
Unhappy with the trial court's order, father filed a notice of motion, which he entitled, "Appeal for Hearing on June 23, 2011." In his "appeal," father argued the trial court was "wrong" about his income. He maintained his position that he was making significantly less money than the court found he was making. Father asked for an order shortening time to have the motion heard along with his motion to modify spousal support, but his request was denied.
On July 27, 2011, the parties appeared on father's motion to modify spousal support. Father's motion was denied.
On August 10, 2011, the trial court heard father's "Appeal for Hearing on June 23, 2011." Father's motion was denied. Father ...