Filed 8/17/26 Marriage of Tully CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
In re the Marriage of CHRISTOPHER and HEATHER C102232
TULLY.
(Super. Ct. No. FL202015)
CHRISTOPHER TULLY,
Respondent,
v.
HEATHER TULLY,
Appellant.
Appellant Heather Tully (Heather)1 and respondent Christopher Tully
(Christopher) were married for more than 38 years when Christopher filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage in 2020. A judgment of dissolution was filed in July 2022 which
included an award of temporary spousal support for Heather. In the first of two
postjudgment orders from which Heather, representing herself, appeals, the trial court on
August 12, 2024, denied her request for modification of the spousal support award. In
the second order, dated December 11, 2024, the court denied Heather’s motion for
spousal support and/or spousal support arrears, terminated Christopher’s spousal support
1 Because of the parties’ shared last name, we will refer to them by their first names.
No disrespect is intended.
1
obligation, granted his request for attorney fees as a sanction, and dismissed two orders to
show cause filed by Heather seeking to hold Christopher in contempt.
The argument section of Heather’s opening brief contains two headings. The first
refers to “[e]rroneous [d]ismissal,” and simply lists a number of the issues addressed
throughout the proceedings in the trial court. (Capitalization omitted.) In the second, she
states that the trial court’s erroneous community property award prejudiced her, although
she also raises additional matters under this heading, including spousal support, support
arrearages, and dismissal of the orders to show cause.
We will affirm the order dated August 12, 2024. We will dismiss the portion of
Heather’s appeal from the order dated December 11, 2024, which challenges the
dismissal of the orders to show cause alleging contempt, and otherwise affirm that order.
BACKGROUND
The parties were married in 1981. Christopher filed a petition for dissolution of
marriage on January 2, 2020, in which he requested divorce, termination of the court’s
ability to award spousal support, for the court to determine rights to community property,
and for an award of attorney fees.
Following trial, a judgment of dissolution was filed July 30, 2022, terminating
marital status as of March 18, 2022. The judgment made determinations as to community
property and separate property. With regard to community property, among other things,
the trial court determined the fair market value of a vessel named “Charisma” to be
$90,000. The court awarded Christopher the vessel, but found that he owed Heather
$20,625 in Watts charges. (See In re Marriage of Watts (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 366, 374
[when, after separation, one spouse has exclusive use of a community asset, the
community may seek reimbursement from the possessory spouse for the reasonable value
of that use].) The court also ordered that the parties were to share equally the community
property value of Christopher’s Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund and Teamsters
Pension Trust. The court approved the “Propertizer” which provided for an equalizing
2
payment from Christopher to Heather in the amount of $59,369. (See Welch v. Welch
(2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 283, 291, fn. 5 [“ ‘Propertizer’ is commercial software that divides
community assets and debts”].) The court directed that a prior temporary spousal support
order requiring Christopher to pay Heather $156 per month was to continue until further
order of the court. The court ordered Heather to pay $6,000 to Christopher in attorney
fees for failure to respond to settlement offers.
In December 2022, Christopher filed a request, among other things, to terminate
spousal support or to set support at $0. He stated that Heather had recently provided
childcare services for several months and she held a manicurist’s license, and thus she
had the ability to earn income. Christopher represented that he was “drowning in” more
than $100,000 debt, and that he still had to pay Heather the equalizing payment due under
the judgment. He also stated he lacked the ability to engage in gainful employment
because he was 65 years old, he suffered from severe osteoarthritis, and he was on Social
Security Disability.
In an order after hearing filed December 16, 2022, the trial court found that
Heather held a valid manicurist license and worked as a day care provider after
separation, and therefore had marketable skills and could work. The court ordered her to
make reasonable, good-faith efforts to become self-supporting. The court found that
Christopher lacked the ability to pay permanent spousal support. He had significant debt
and was solely responsible for the payment of all community obligations after separation,
with no contribution from Heather. Additionally, Christopher would be further in debt in
order to satisfy the equalizing payment. The court set permanent spousal support at $0
beginning December 15, 2022. The court also modified the July 30, 2022, judgment to
award Christopher the “ ‘Charisma’ ” under its new name, “ ‘Tres Charismas.’ ”
On April 11, 2024, Heather filed an order to show cause to hold Christopher in
contempt. She argued that Christopher had made no attempt to comply with the
judgment’s directives. She represented that he owed her $4,224.61 in spousal support
3
arrearages and costs. She filed a second order to show cause on May 23, 2024. In
addition to repeating the claims in the first order to show cause, it added that, on May 21,
2024, Christopher commenced a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. In a memorandum
of points and authorities, Christopher sought dismissal of Heather’s orders to show cause
and requested sanctions and attorney fees.
Heather filed a request for modification of spousal support. She stated that she
was 100 percent disabled, while Christopher was in very good health and had the ability
to earn. She acknowledged she retained a manicurist license, but stated she did so for
“sentimental reasons.” Following argument, in a minute order dated August 12, 2024,
the trial court denied Heather’s request for modification of the spousal support award.
Heather filed a notice of appeal from this order on October 8, 2024.
In a declaration filed November 15, 2024, Christopher represented that he did not
owe support arrearages, and that Heather had been paid in full. He requested that the trial
court terminate all spousal support obligations between the parties. In a declaration of
payment history dated November 18, 2024, Heather set forth what she claimed to be
Christopher’s support arrearages, in the amount of $3,382.62.
After argument on December 11, 2024, the trial court issued a minute order
denying Heather’s motion for spousal support and/or arrears; terminated Christopher’s
spousal support obligation; granted Christopher’s request for attorney fees as a sanction
in the amount of $5,000; and dismissed the orders to show cause filed by Heather on
April 11, 2024, and May 23, 2024, as well as “any other [order to show cause] filed
against” Christopher. Heather filed a notice of appeal from this order on January 9, 2025.
Findings and order after hearing filed March 6, 2025, were consistent with the minute
order.
4
DISCUSSION
I
Self-represented Litigants and Rules of Appellate Procedure
As a self-represented litigant, Heather “is entitled to the same but no greater
consideration than other litigants.” (County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021)
65 Cal.App.5th 858, 861 (County of Sacramento).) Accordingly, she “must follow the
rules of appellate procedure.” (Ibid.) “Those rules require an appellate brief to support
each point by argument and, if possible, by citation to authority and to provide a citation
to the record for a factual assertion.” (Ibid., citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).) “ ‘[W]e may disregard factual contentions that are not supported
by citations to the record [citation] or are based on information that is outside the record
[citation]. We may disregard legal arguments that are not supported by citations to legal
authority [citation] or are conclusory.’ ” (County of Sacramento, at p. 861.) “Further, we
may treat a point that is not supported by cogent legal argument as forfeited.” (Ibid.)
II
Erroneous Dismissal
One of Heather’s two argument headings reads, “Erroneous Dismissal.” (Some
capitalization omitted.) Under that heading, Heather states, in full: “This appeal is in
regards to the orders and motions in the parties[’] marital dissolution, concerning[]
property division, [citation] spousal support, [citation] [s]pousal support termination,
[citation] spousal support arrearages, [citation] [c]ontempt of court, [] I.E., ‘order to show
cause’ [e]rroneous dismissal, [citation] sanctions, [citations] and attorney fees. Financial
obligations and all domestic support obligations that [Christopher] did not disclose in
filing for bankruptcy [citation].”
5
This portion of the argument section of Heather’s briefing is not supported by
legal argument or by citation to authority. (See County of Sacramento, supra,
65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) As stated, we “ ‘may
disregard legal arguments that are not supported by citations to legal authority [citation]
or are conclusory.’ ” (County of Sacramento, at p. 861.) “Further, we may treat a point
that is not supported by cogent legal argument as forfeited.” (Ibid.) Under this argument
heading, Heather has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating the existence of reversible
error. (See Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766 [it is appellant’s
burden to demonstrate reversible error].)
III
Community Property Award and Additional Arguments
In the balance of the argument section of her opening brief, under her second
argument heading, which concerns the community property award, Heather advances a
number of arguments directed to community property issues and other matters, which we
address below.
A. Division of Community Property
Heather argues that the community property award constituted prejudicial error.
She argues the trial court erroneously awarded Christopher the “ ‘Charisma,’ ” which was
a community asset. Citing Family Code sections 1101 and 721, she argues that the trial
court could not award 100 percent of a community asset to Christopher absent a finding
of malice, oppression, or fraud against her. We note as an aside here that the judgment
did award the “ ‘Charisma’ ” to Christopher, and thus the full $90,000 of its value was
counted as Christopher’s property on the Propertizer. This, however, increased the
disparity in the parties’ property holdings by that amount, and therefore added to the
amount of the equalizing payment Christoper was required to pay to Heather, $59,369 in
total. In other words, the equalizing payment was intended to compensate Heather for,
6
among other things, her interest in the “ ‘Charisma.’ ” Returning to her arguments,
Heather also maintains she has a claim against Christopher for breach of his fiduciary
duty to her by his impairment of her present undivided one-half interest in the community
estate. She argues that substantial evidence does not support the award. She also argues
that Christopher has failed to pay her $20,625 in Watts credits. Heather argues
Christopher intentionally and in bad faith hid and failed to disclose assets.
Christopher responds that Heather’s arguments concerning erroneous community
property awards are untimely and not appealable more than 180 days after the judgment
became final. We agree that Heather’s claims are foreclosed.
Heather’s arguments concerning the division of community property pertain to
matters finally disposed of in the judgment and a postjudgment order modifying the
judgment. The judgment was filed on July 30, 2022, and modified in a December 16,
2022, order. Therefore, a notice of appeal concerning the division of community
property had to be filed no later than 180 days after entry of the July 30, 2022, judgment,
and, insofar as relevant to the modification of the judgment, no later than 180 days after
entry of the December 16, 2022, order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C).) “The
time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the appellate
court has no power to entertain the appeal.” (Van Beurden Insurance Services, Inc. v.
Customized Worldwide Weather Insurance Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.) The
notices of appeal here were filed in October 2024 and January 2025, well past these
deadlines. The time to appeal from the judgment has long expired. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.104(a)(1).)
B. Denial of Request for Modification of Spousal Support and Support
Arrearages
Heather argues that, under Family Code section 4320, she should have been
awarded long-term/permanent spousal support. Heather argues the “ ‘County of Santa
7
Clara’ formula” (see Super. Ct. Santa Clara County, Local Family Rules, rule 3.C) and
the “Rule of 65,” a formula relevant to whether long-term or indefinite support will be
ordered, were erroneously not applied.
“ ‘A motion for modification of spousal support may only be granted if there has
been a material change of circumstances since the last order. [Citation.] Otherwise,
dissolution cases would have no finality and unhappy former spouses could bring
repeated actions for modification with no burden of showing a justification to change the
order…. [Citation.] Absent a change of circumstances, a motion for modification is
nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final order.’ ” (In re
Marriage of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1479.) “We review a trial
court decision on a request to modify spousal support for an abuse of discretion. ‘ “ ‘So
long as the court exercised its discretion along legal lines, its decision will not be
reversed on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support it.’ ” ’ [Citation.] We
presume the court’s decision is correct and the appealing party must affirmatively show
error.” (In re Marriage of Minkin (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 939, 957.)
Heather’s argument that, under Family Code section 4320, she should have been
awarded long-term/permanent spousal support, and that the trial court should have
applied the “ ‘Santa Clara’ formula” and the “Rule of 65,” does not address a change in
circumstances warranting a modification in support. Heather states: “The ‘county of
Santa Clara’ formula states that[, ]40% of the payor’s net income,–50% of the payees[’]
net income should have been applied and ordered; Mr. Tully was ordered to pay just
156.00 per month. [¶] I believe the court lacked discretion in not considering and
ordering the ‘Santa Clara’ formula, nor the Family code 4320, nor the Rule of 65.’ ”
These arguments amount to an attack on the court’s prior determination to order $156 per
month in temporary support. Arguments addressed to that order of temporary support
reach far into the past. The $156 monthly temporary support order predates the
judgment. It appears that order was in effect until Christopher’s monthly spousal support
8
obligation was reduced to $0 in the order filed December 16, 2022. As stated, the time to
appeal from the December 16, 2022, order has long since expired. Heather’s attack on
the $156 per month temporary support award, and its reduction to $0, are not properly
before us on these appeals.
Heather does go on to argue that circumstances have changed since December
2022, when support was set at $0. She argues that Christopher’s income far exceeds hers,
and that the trial court erred in failing to consider changed circumstances. She relies on
numerous “exhibits” in her appendix which we now discuss. These exhibits do not
establish the premises for which Heather cites to them, do not establish a change in
circumstances over the relevant time, or both.
She cites to emails in which she inquired into whether Christopher was working at
and being paid by a yacht club, and to a subpoena duces tecum she attempted to serve on
the yacht club. These items evince her belief that Christopher was being paid by the
yacht club. They do not establish that he was.
Heather also cites to an income detail report apparently filed in Christopher’s
bankruptcy proceeding, listing his monthly benefits from his two pensions and his Social
Security Disability Insurance income for the period from November 2023 through April
2024. Nothing establishes that these monthly payment amounts have changed since the
trial court reduced the support award to $0. We also note that, while Heather totals these
monthly amounts to demonstrate that Christopher’s income far surpasses her own, it
appears that the two monthly pension payment amounts reported by Christopher included
the roughly half of those benefits which were to be paid to Heather. The monthly income
details indicated Chrisopher’s Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund paid $5,706.58
monthly, and his Teamsters Pension Trust paid $495 monthly. A December 1, 2024,
payment summary from the Teamsters Pension Trust to Heather indicated a monthly
payment to her of $247.50, which is half of $495. A December 30, 2022, letter from the
Operating Engineers Pension Trust Funds to Christopher indicated that, effective January
9
1, 2023, his monthly benefit would be reduced by $2,713.71 pursuant to a qualified
domestic relations order establishing that Heather had been awarded 47.554 percent of
the total benefit amount. A letter from the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers
evidenced a monthly payment to Heather of $2,713.71, which is 47.554 percent of
$5,706.58.
As part of the same exhibit, Heather cites to an unsigned, unsworn document,
perhaps prepared by Heather, describing Christopher’s “increase of income since filing
Bankruptcy.” She cites to one page of an income and expense declaration dated
November 14, 2020, apparently filed in this case by Christopher, listing expenses. She
cites to what appears to be a list of Christopher’s creditors containing no details other
than names and addresses. And she cites to a plan document apparently filed in
Christopher’s bankruptcy proceeding stating that he would pay $365 monthly from future
earnings. None of these documents demonstrates a change in circumstances warranting
modification of the support award.
Heather also cites to several documents relevant to her own income. She cites to a
notification that her Social Security benefit was to increase in 2025 due to cost-of-living
increases. This concerns matters postdating the orders appealed from. She relies on an
income and expense declaration she completed, dated June 20, 2025, which postdates the
orders appealed from. She cites to a 2023 notification that her Social Security Disability
benefits were continuing. Heather offers no cogent legal argument as to how these
matters demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification of the support
award. (See County of Sacramento, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.) She also makes a
number of factual claims unsupported by citation to the record. (See ibid.; Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).)
Nothing on which Heather relies demonstrates that the trial court abused its
discretion in determining that she failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances
10
warranting a modification of the spousal support award. Heather has not affirmatively
demonstrated error. (See In re Marriage of Minkin, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 957.)
Heather also argues that Christopher is in arrears in spousal support in the amount
of $3,603.60, citing her civil appeal mediation statement which provides no support for
her argument. Of arrearages, it only stated that, on appeal, Heather expected to raise the
denial of her motion for spousal support and arrearages. That document does cross-
reference her spousal support declaration attachment and appended documents, but these
documents do not address arrearages. We do note that another exhibit in Heather’s
appendix is addressed to arrearages. This exhibit consists of a completed declaration of
payment history form claiming arrearages in the amount of $3,603.60 for 2020 and 2022,
a completed attachment form appearing to claim arrearages for 2020 and 2022 totaling
$3,276, and 27 pages of credit union statements. Heather provides no cogent legal
argument or citation to authority to demonstrate how her exhibits prove her entitlement to
arrearages. (See County of Sacramento, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.) Moreover, the
trial court concluded that any arrearages owed by Christopher were more than satisfied
by a January 3, 2023, overpayment of Christopher’s Operating Engineers pension to
Heather in the amount of $2,224.55. Heather does not address this determination in her
briefing. (See Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th
733, 786 [issues not addressed “in a party’s opening brief with legal analysis and citation
to authority are forfeited”].)
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Legal Malpractice
Heather claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that her
attorney committed malpractice by, among other things, ignoring her claim that
Christopher concealed $12,000 in an unknown account in 2019. A claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel “has no place in contested dissolution proceedings” (bold typeface
and italics omitted). (In re Marriage of Campi (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1565, 1574.)
11
Any claim for legal malpractice would have to be asserted against Heather’s former
attorney, not Christopher.
D. Additional Claims
Heather makes a number of additional claims. Among those not addressed by our
discussion to this point, she argues that Christopher made no effort to comply with the
judgment and that his disclosures are misleading and made in bad faith. She accuses
Christopher of malevolent behavior, emotional abuse, manipulation, slander, and perjury.
However, she does not advance a cogent legal argument supported by the record and with
citation to authority. (See County of Sacramento, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.) She
also discusses “several other factors to consider in the judgment filed on July 30th,
2022.” However, as stated, the time to appeal from that judgment has long expired.
E. Conclusion
“ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments
and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent,
and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d
557, 564.) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.”
(Del Real v. City of Riverside, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 766.) Heather has not
demonstrated the existence of reversible error.
IV
Dismissal of Orders to Show Cause Alleging Contempt
In the December 11, 2024, order, the trial court dismissed the orders to show cause
Heather filed on April 11 and May 23, 2024, seeking to hold Christopher in contempt, as
well as “any other [order to show cause] filed against” Christopher. Heather raises these
orders to show cause in her arguments on appeal.
12
“Orders in contempt cases are final and conclusive [citation] and are not
appealable [citation]….” (McCord v. Smith (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 358, 367, citing Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 1222, 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) “It is well settled that orders and judgments
made in cases of contempt are not appealable, and this rule has been held applicable both
where the trial court imposed punishment for contempt and where the alleged contemner
was discharged.” (John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877, 878, citing Code
Civ. Proc., § 1222.) This rule applies to an order dismissing a contempt proceeding.
(Butler v. Butler (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 132, 135-136.) Accordingly, we will dismiss the
portion of Heather’s appeal from the order dated December 11, 2024, which appeals from
the dismissal of the orders to show cause.
13
DISPOSITION
The order dated August 12, 2024, is affirmed. Heather’s appeal from the portion
of the order dated December 11, 2024, which dismissed her orders to show cause filed on
April 11, 2024, and May 23, 2024, as well as “any other [order to show cause] filed
against” Christopher, seeking to hold him in contempt, is dismissed. The order dated
December 11, 2024, is otherwise affirmed. In the interest of justice, the parties shall bear
their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
\s\
KRAUSE, J.
We concur:
\s\
RENNER, Acting P. J.
\s\
FEINBERG, J.
14