Filed 11/29/18 Demko v. Andrassy CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Paula J. Coleman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.). Affirmed.

Janos Andrassy, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Edina Demko, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Linda M. Gonzalez and Monique S. Seguy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Intervener and Respondent, Orange County Department of Child Support Services, and on behalf of the public interest pursuant to Family Code sections 17406-17407.^[1]

* * *

Janos Andrassy appeals from an order denying his order to show cause to reduce his child support obligation. Edina Demko contends the trial court correctly determined Andrassy failed to show a change in circumstances. Finding no error, we affirm the order.

FACTS

Andrassy and Demko share custody of their minor daughter. In 2014, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment governing custody, visitation, and child support. Under the judgment, Andrassy paid Demko $600 per month in child support. No guideline calculation was attached to the parties’ stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment contained findings under section 4065, regarding below guideline support.

In August 2015, Andrassy filed an order to show cause requesting modification of child support, seeking to modify his “non-guideline” child support obligation. In February 2017, the trial court denied Andrassy’s request for modification because he failed to meet his burden of proof regarding the amount of his current income. The court determined “the current order of $600.00 per month may be a non-guideline order but [Andrassy’s] true income is unable to be determined.” Andrassy submitted income evidence from 2015 to 2016, which consisted of profit and loss statements from his self-owned construction company. The court noted the evidence showed Demko earned approximately $6.50 more per hour than she did previously; however, evidence of Demko’s income was not included in the record on appeal.^[2] Ultimately, because the court viewed Andrassy’s income evidence with skepticism, it was unwilling to grant his request to modify his child support obligation downward. No reporter’s transcript of the underlying hearing was filed on appeal.

DISCUSSION

Andrassy contends the trial court erred when it denied his request to modify the previously stipulated child support order. While somewhat difficult to interpret, we believe Andrassy’s argument is this: he previously stipulated to a judgment of $600 per month based on his income at that time. This was a below guideline amount given the parties’ inclusion of the section 4065 declarations. Andrassy argues the trial court should have modified the non-guideline support amount of $600 per month further downward because his income had decreased, and/or Demko’s had increased.

Demko responds that the court properly determined Andrassy failed to satisfy his burden of proving a change in his financial circumstances. We agree with Demko.

A trial court’s determination of a request for modification of child support is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Williams (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1233-1234 (Williams).) “The ultimate determination of whether the individual facts of the case warrant modification of support is within the discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] The reviewing court will resolve any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the trial court’s determination.” (In re Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 546, 556 (Leonard).) ““‘The burden is on the party complaining to establish an abuse of discretion . . . . ’”” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.)

Pursuant to section 3651, subdivision (a), “a support order may be modified or terminated at any time as the court determines to be necessary.”^[3] A party seeking to modify a child support order generally bears the burden of introducing “admissible evidence of changed circumstances as a necessary predicate for modification.” (In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 298.) “The burden of proof to establish that changed circumstances warrant a downward adjustment in child support rests with the supporting spouse.” (Leonard, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 556.) A narrow exception to this requirement is “[w]here the parties have stipulated to a child support order that is below the amount established by the statewide uniform guideline, the order may be modified to guideline level or above without a showing of changed circumstances.” (Williams, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1234.)

There is no evidence in the record as to the amount of support required here by the guideline formula. We infer the stipulated judgment between the parties was for a below guideline support amount. This is because the parties filed the requisite declarations under section 4065, subdivision (a), which must accompany a below guideline child support order. Indeed, the trial judge hearing the modification request appeared to recognize Andrassy’s child support obligation was a below guideline amount. Andrassy was required to demonstrate a change in circumstances because he sought to reduce his support obligation even further.

Here, the trial court found no change in circumstances. Our limited record on appeal hampers our ability to determine precisely what evidence the court considered, and what findings the court made at the hearing. A change in one parent’s financial position does not trigger an automatic modification of a child support obligation. “The court must examine both parties’ circumstances as a whole; and must also evaluate those circumstances in light of the statutory factors that may properly be considered in fixing child support.” (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 17:41, p. 17-16.)

We note there is no precise formula for determining whether circumstances have sufficiently changed to warrant a child support modification. Such a determination is made on a case-by-case basis and “[e]ach case stands or falls on its own facts, but the overriding issue is whether a change has affected either party’s financial status.” (In re Marriage of Laudeman (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1015 (Laudeman).)

The trial court determined Andrassy failed to sustain his burden to demonstrate a change in his financial circumstances. Andrassy contends this was error because the evidence showed his income remained static while Demko’s income increased. The record included profit and loss statements from Andrassy’s self-owned construction company from 2015 to 2016, which the court did not credit. There is no evidence in the record on appeal showing what Andrassy’s income was at the time of the stipulated judgment. The court noted the difficulty in assessing a change in circumstances due to the lack of information: “this case is made more problematic by virtue of having no guideline calculation attached to the [stipulated] [j]udgment so the court would know if there was in fact a change of circumstances from the agreed upon child support amount.”

Furthermore, although it was not disputed in briefing, the record contained no evidence of Demko’s current income, other than a statement by the court, and was devoid of any evidence of her past income. On this record, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in determining there was no change of circumstances. (See Laudeman, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016, fn. 5 [modification based on current circumstances will not be upheld where there are no findings about the parties’ circumstances at the time of the original order, making it “impossible to determine . . . whether anything changed.”].)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Andrassy shall bear costs on appeal.

GOETHALS, J.

WE CONCUR:

ARONSON, ACTING P. J.

THOMPSON, J.