Filed 9/22/26 County of Orange v. Castelo CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
COUNTY OF ORANGE,
Respondent, G065532
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 20FL101380,
20P000888)
KINZEVO PATRICK CASTELO,
OPINION
Appellant;
SARA RAZAVI
Real Party in Interest.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Stephen T. Hicklin, Judge. Affirmed.
Kinzevo Patrick Castelo, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Sara Razavi, in pro. per., for Real Party in Interest.
Kinzevo Patrick Castelo challenges the trial court’s denial of his
request for reimbursement of overpaid child support. Because he shows no
abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that his request was untimely,
we affirm.
FACTS
The record on appeal is limited to the trial court’s statement of
decision and the reporter’s transcript of the relevant hearing. We draw the
facts from those sources.
The County of Orange filed this action against Castelo in 2020 to
enforce his child support obligations to Sara Razavi. The County obtained a
judgment against Castelo. The record does not reflect the amount of Castelo’s
child support obligations under the judgment.
Castelo first requested a reduction of his child support
obligations in January 2022. The trial court granted his request in April of
that year. Castelo sought another reduction in late July 2022. In January
2023, the court again obliged his request and “reserved retroactivity back to
August 1, 2022” (the month after his request). Again, the record does not
show the amount of Castelo’s support obligations after either of these
reductions. The next month, in February 2023, the court ordered another
reduction in Castelo’s support obligations, this time to $1,637 per month, for
the period between August 1, 2022, and December 31, 2022.1 The court
ordered that if Castello had overpaid, the mother was to reimburse the funds
1 It is unclear from the record whether this order was responsive
to Castelo’s July 2022 request or some other request.
2
in monthly payments, and Castelo was “‘to file his own motion if he wants to
address overpayment.’”2
Almost two years later, in December 2024, Castelo filed a request
for order seeking about $31,000 in overpaid child support. At a hearing on
this request, Castelo explained that during “the first six months . . . during
the pandemic” his average income was much higher and later dropped
considerably. He added that his time with his child changed as well, going
“from 1 percent to 50 percent as of March . . . 2024.” And so he claimed he
was overpaying “during that period of time.” When the court asked what
period he was seeking reimbursement for, Castelo replied, “Essentially from
August 2020 to January 2022.” He claimed the prior orders were temporary
and reserved the issue of retroactivity. The trial court denied his request,
concluding it was both untimely and barred by res judicata.
DISCUSSION
As Razavi notes, Castelo provided an inadequate record to allow
meaningful review. We do not have the judgment, Castelo’s requests for
reduction in his child support obligations, the court’s orders granting those
reductions, or his pending request for order seeking repayment of overpaid
support. And we do not know Castelo’s original support obligation or how
much he actually paid during each period following the judgment. That alone
defeats Castelo’s appeal. (See Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game
Commission (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 [if record is inadequate
for meaningful review, appellant defaults and trial court’s decision should be
affirmed].)
Regardless, we see no error in the trial court’s ruling.
2 The case was reassigned to Judge Stephen T. Hicklin after these
orders.
3
As an initial matter, it is unclear what Castelo is seeking. The
trial court’s February 2023 order reduced child support for August through
December 2022 and invited him to “‘file his own motion if he wants to address
overpayment.’” This is reasonably construed as contemplating a
reimbursement motion for August to December 2022. But at the hearing on
his motion, Castelo said he was seeking reimbursement from August 2020 to
January 2022, before he filed his first request to reduce his payments. His
explanation of the basis for his request also referenced this earlier period,
pointing to his change in income after “the first six months . . . during the
pandemic”—though he also referenced the change in custody arrangements
as of March 2024. His appellate briefing sheds no additional light on whether
he wants reimbursement for the end of 2022 (when his child support had
been reduced) or for 2020 through 2022 (before he filed his first request).
But even if he is seeking reimbursement for the more recent
period, the trial court reasonably concluded his request was untimely.
When a court retroactively reduces child support, it “has
discretion to require the [receiving party] to repay to the [paying party]
overpayments resulting from a retroactive decrease in . . . child support . . . .”
(Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group
2026) ¶ 6:626.1, citing Fam. Code,3 § 3653, subd. (d).)
“In determining whether to order a repayment, and in
establishing the terms of repayment, the court shall consider all of the
following factors: [¶] (1) The amount to be repaid. [¶] (2) The duration of the
support order prior to modification or termination. [¶] (3) The financial
impact on the support obligee of any particular method of repayment such as
3 All statutory references are to this code.
4
an offset against future support payments or wage assignment. [¶] (4) Any
other facts or circumstances that the court deems relevant.” (§ 3653, subd.
(d).) “[W]hether and how to weigh the timing of the reimbursement request
easily constitutes ‘any other fact[] or circumstance[] that the court deems
relevant’ when balancing the equities under section 3653, subd[ivision] (d).”
(In re Marriage of Saraye (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 348, 359.)
Although the February 2023 order made the reduction in
Castelo’s support obligation retroactive to August 2022, it required him to
“file [a] motion” if he wanted to obtain repayment. That order gave a
framework for repayment by the mother—providing for monthly payments—
but it did not itself order repayment. Indeed, we have no indication that it
could have ordered repayment because we have nothing showing that, at the
time, the court knew the amount to be repaid. (§ 3653, subd. (d).) Castelo
requested repayment only in December 2024, almost two years after the
February 2023 order. He makes no showing that court abused its broad
discretion by concluding this was too late.4 (See In re Marriage of Saraye,
supra, 106 Cal.App.5th at p. 359 [court may consider “the timing of the
reimbursement request”].)
If Castelo is seeking reimbursement for August 2020 through
January 2022, as he told the court, he is later still.5 Moreover, the court could
only have made any reduction retroactive to January 2022, when he first
4 Contrary to Castelo’s assertion, at the hearing, the trial court
provided him an opportunity to be heard regarding the timeliness of his
request.
5 At oral argument before this court, Castelo again said his
motion sought reimbursement for 2020 through 2022.
5
sought to reduce his obligation.6 (§ 3653, subd. (a) [order modifying child
support “may be made retroactive to the date of the filing of the notice of
motion or order to show cause”].) Castelo cites no authority, and we are
aware of none, that would let him now receive reimbursement for payments
made between August 2020 and January 2022 under any circumstance.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order is affirmed. Razavi is awarded costs on
appeal.
SCOTT, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
DELANEY, J.
6 To that extent, the January 2023 order reducing child support
for August to December 2022 may well be res judicata as to any request to
modify child support before that period—as the trial court found—but we
cannot say so with certainty on this limited record.
6