Marriage of Tossey
Pornpam Tossey (Pam)[1] appeals from the trial court’s judgment on reserved issues following dissolution of her marriage to Laurence A. Tossey. She challenges the court’s decision to continue imputing income to her when she failed to demonstrate she searched for a customer support job or other employment. The court, however, refused to allow her to present any evidence concerning her job search or job availability, and instead announced at the outset of the trial on reserved issues that the evidence was “close[d]†even before the trial began. Pam also challenges both the trial court’s decision not to require Laurence to pay a portion of her attorney fees and the court’s decision to impose Watts charges (In re Marriage of Watts (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 366 (Watts)) for her exclusive use of the couple’s jointly-owned home while they were separated. As we explain, the due process violation requires reversal of the judgment.
Comments on Marriage of Tossey