Marriage of Brown
Filed 5/1/08 Marriage of Brown CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of DAVID and KATHRYN E. M. BROWN. | |
DAVID S. BROWN, Respondent, v. KATHRYN E. M. BROWN, Appellant. | D049322 (Super. Ct. No. D453601) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND MODIFICATION ORDER [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] |
The petition for rehearing is denied.
The opinion is modified as follows:
1. On page 12, line 3, delete the words "monthly permanent spousal support" and replace them with "her monthly spousal support."
2. On page 13, delete the first full paragraph and replace it with the following:
Here, the court found that "[t]he parties' marital standard of living was relatively modest for most of their marriage" and recited the evidence showing that the parties lived frugally as to their living expenses. Its statement of decision did not make any reference to the uncontroverted evidence that the parties' frugal lifestyle allowed them to invest substantial amounts in their businesses and in investment properties or its finding after the Property Trial as to the actual level of David's income.
3. On page 14, delete the paragraph beginning on line 11 and carrying over to page 15, line 2, and replace it with the following:
Where, as here, the court makes an order for such "add-on" child support, section 4063, subdivision (b), provides that "when either parent accrues or pays costs pursuant to an order under this section, that parent shall provide the other parent with an itemized statement of the costs within a reasonable time, but not more than 30 days of accruing the costs." (See generally In re Marriage of Lusby (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 459, 466-468, 475.) In this case, David initially provided Kathryn with notice of the health care expenses he paid for the children on a monthly basis (as the court found) and deducted one-half of those expenses from his support payments; however, after Kathryn objected to this arrangement and obtained a court order prohibiting David from reducing the monthly support, David stopped providing Kathryn with any notice of the amounts he was incurring for the children's health care; although Kathryn was aware that the children were receiving various therapeutic and other types of treatment, she did not request that David provide her with a monthly update regarding the costs of those treatments.
4. On page 15, delete the paragraph beginning on line 20 and carrying over to page 16, line 2, and replace it with the following:
In accordance with the statutory scheme, David was required to provide Kathryn with timely itemized statements of the uninsured health care expenses he incurred for the benefit of the children. Although the court found that David provided notice of such expenses he incurred between July 2000 and June 2001, it did not find that he provided itemized statements setting forth the amounts incurred and the services received therefore. Further, neither David's testimony at trial nor the trial exhibit he submitted in connection with his request for reimbursement of these expenses is sufficient to substantiate that he complied with the statutory mandate. Accordingly, Kathryn was not obligated to reimburse David for such expenses and we reverse the judgment insofar as it requires her to do so.
There is no change in the judgment.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
Copies to: All parties
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
