 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Marriage of Joshi2/5/2004
Vijay Joshi (Husband) appeals from an order awarding Savitha Achar (Wife) temporary spousal support and from a subsequent order denying Husband's motion to modify temporary spousal support. We affirm the orders. We deny Wife's request for sanctions because Wife failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 27(e).
Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court
Husband and Wife were married on May 16, 2002. Wife lived in India before marrying Husband. They met through the Internet and developed a relationship. Wife arrived in the United States in April 2002 under a K-1 fiancée visa sponsored by Husband.
The marriage did not work out, and Husband filed a petition for dissolution in July 2002. Wife sought spousal support and attorney fees.
On October 7, 2002, the trial court entered a minute order stating, in part: "Court is advised this is a 2½ month marriage. [ ] Court finds pursuant to the I 864 filed with Immigration & Naturalization Services and the K-1 visa which was honored that the petitioner . . . entered into a contract and that the respondent is a third party beneficiary. [ ] Court orders guideline spousal support; both counsel to prepare a DissoMaster, and court to make orders. [ ] For the mathematical findings, see the DissoMaster printout signed and filed this date. Court orders as and for spousal support from husband to wife the sum of $993 per month, payable ½ on the first and ½ on the fifteenth of each month commencing 9/15/02 with credit for any payments made thus far. [ ] . . . [ ] As and for a contributive share of the attorney fees, court orders from husband directly to wife's counsel the sum of $1,000." The DissoMaster printout does not appear in the record on appeal.
On December 9, 2002, Husband filed a motion for modification of spousal support and for attorney fees. Husband requested the court to reduce spousal support to $357 per month and submitted a new income and expense statement. In response, Wife asserted Husband "is purposefully under-employing himself to escape spousal support obligations."
Husband's motion was heard on January 24, 2003. The court deemed the motion as both a motion for reconsideration and a motion for modification, and denied the motion as untimely.
On February 25, 2003, Husband filed a notice of appeal "from the judgment made and entered in the above entitled action on January 24, 2003 and October 2002, in favor of [Wife]." Husband's appeal is timely under California Rules of Court, rule 2(a)(3), (c)(2).
Analysis
1. Order for Temporary Spousal Support and Order Denying Motion for Modification
Family Code section 3600 provides " uring the pendency of any proceeding for dissolution of marriage . . . , the court may order . . . the husband or wife to pay any amount that is necessary for the support of the wife or husband, consistent with the requirements of subdivisions (i) and (m) of [Family Code] Section 4320 and Section 4325." An order for temporary spousal support, for attorney fees, or denying a motion to modify temporary spousal support, is appealable. (In re Marriage of Skelley (1976) 18 Cal.3d 365, 368-369; In re Marriage of Weiss (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 106, 119.)
Husband appears to challenge the orders regarding spousal support on two grounds. First, in the heading under roman numeral one, Husband asserts, "The trial court erred in finding that petitioner pay spousal support of $993.00 per month based on an affidavit of support filed for the underlying K1 fiancé visa application almost two years ago prior to the hearing." Second, in the text following the heading, Husband
Page 1 2 3 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|