Hua Jiang v. Channey Hung Vi Chau

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 HUA JIANG,) Case Number: FDI-15-784943) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 1, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHANNEY HUNG VI CHAU,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHANGE OF SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties in this matter are Petitioner Hua Jiang (Wife) and Respondent Channey Hung Vi 18 Chau (Husband).

The parties have three adult children. Husband is represented by attorney 19 Maryann Dresner. Wife is self-represented. 20 2) On 5/20/2025, the parties appeared for a Judicial Settlement Conference (JSC) before Judge 21 Luna. Wife appeared in pro per. Husband appeared with his attorney Maryann Dresner. The 22 parties reached a full agreement. The parties agreed the property located at 745 Brunswick St. 23 San Francisco, CA would remain in joint tenancy until both parties die, at which point it would 24 pass to the parties’ three adult children.

The parties agreed they would occupy the Brunswick St. 25 property in different sections of the home. Husband agreed to pay Wife $2,500 per month for 26 spousal support commencing 8/1/2025. The parties also agreed to share equally the mortgage, 27 property taxes, property insurance, and utilities for the Brunswick St. property. The minutes for 28 the 5/25/2025 JSC indicate the Court found the parties to have freely, knowingly, and voluntarily 29

1 entered into the stipulated agreement and ordered that the parties’ agreement become an order of 2 the Court. 3 3) A Judgment memorializing the parties’ agreements reached at the 5/20/2025 Judicial Settlement 4 Conference was filed on 4/10/2026. 5 4) On 2/17/2026 (per the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 3/9/2026), the Court adjudicated 6 Husband’s Request for Order (filed 8/13/2025) wherein Husband requested that the Court set 7 aside the parties’ agreement which requires the parties to share the carrying costs for the 8 Brunswick St. property equally and additionally requires Husband to pay Wife $2,500 per month 9 for spousal support.

The Court found that Husband did not meet his burden to show the Judgment 10 should be set aside and denied Husband’s request. The Court stated that Husband may deduct 11 Wife’s portion of the carrying costs from his $2,500 per month spousal support payment. 12 5) Now on for hearing is Husband’s Request for Order filed 5/8/2026 wherein Husband requests a 13 modification of the order requiring him to pay $2,500 per month in spousal support to Wife. 14 Husband states Wife has not paid “any” of the carrying costs for the residence, which the parties 15 continue to both occupy in separate parts of the residence.

Husband states the carrying costs for 16 the residence exceed the sum of $5,000 per month (as the Court notes below, this is not a correct 17 statement). Husband states he can only afford to pay Wife $1,000 per month in spousal support. 18 Husband does not state whether he has been deducting Wife’s portion of the carrying costs and 19 utilities from Wife’s spousal support payment, as the Court stated he could do at the prior 20 2/17/2026 hearing. 21 6) On 5/8/2026, Husband filed an Income and Expense Declaration.

Husband states he is 59 years 22 old and works as a parcel delivery driver for the United Parcel Service. Husband states he pays 23 the following amounts in carrying costs each month: $2,750 (mortgage), $792 (real property 24 taxes), and $1,500 (homeowner’s insurance). The Court notes this $1,500 figure for homeowner’s 25 insurance is incorrect, and this error also appeared in the Income and Expense Declaration that 26 Husband filed prior to the 2/17/2026 hearing. At the prior 2/17/2026 hearing, both parties testified 27 that the payment for homeowner’s insurance totals $1,500 per year, which averages out to $125 28 per month.

Therefore, the carrying costs for the home actually total $2,750 (mortgage) + $792 29

1 (real property taxes) + $125 (homeowner’s insurance) = $3,667 per month, with each party’s 2 share being $1,833.50 per month. 3 7) On 5/8/2026, Husband filed a Request to Reschedule the hearing on Husband’s Request for 4 Order, which was originally scheduled for 7/30/2026. On 6/26/2026, the Court granted Husband’s 5 request and rescheduled the hearing to 9/1/2026. 6 8) Per the Proof of Service filed 7/2/2026, Husband’s Request for Order, Income and Expense 7 Declaration, Order on Request to Reschedule Hearing, blank Responsive Declaration, blank 8 Income and Expense Declaration, and Tentative Ruling Instructions were mailed to Wife at the 9 Brunswick St. address.

The Court notes that at the prior 2/17/2026 hearing, Wife appeared and 10 confirmed she was still living at the Brunswick St. property. 11 9) Wife has filed no pleadings in response to Husband’s 5/8/2026 Request for Order. 12 B. Findings and Order 13 1) A modification of a spousal support order may be granted only if the party seeking the 14 modification shows a material change of circumstances since the most recent order. Marriage of 15 West (2007) 152 Cal.App4th 240, 246; Marriage of Tydlaska (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 572, 575. 16 A material change of circumstances is required even if the prior spousal support order was 17 established by the parties' agreement.

Marriage of McCann (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 978, 982. 18 Absent a change of circumstances, a motion for modification would be an “impermissible 19 collateral attack on a prior final order.” Marriage of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 20 1467, 1479. 21 2) Husband has not cited a material change in circumstance warranting a modification of the spousal 22 support order contained within the Judgment. Husband’s request to modify the spousal support 23 order is denied. 24 3) Moreover, the Court finds that Husband can afford to pay Wife $2,500 per month in spousal 25 support plus his one-half share of the carrying costs for the residence.

The paystubs attached to 26 Husband’s Income and Expense Declaration show that, as of 4/4/2026, Husband had received 27 $41,385.70 in gross year-to-date pay. The paystubs reflect $166.14 in year-to-date parking 28 deductions, $9,996.62 in year-to-date tax deductions, and $2,042.06 in other deductions, resulting 29 in year-to-date net pay of $29,180.88, which averages out to net monthly income of $9,442. As

1 for Husband’s monthly expenses, they total $1,833.50 (Husband’s one-half share of the carrying 2 costs) + $2,500 (spousal support) + $500 (maintenance) + $872 (eating out) + $400 (cell phone) + 3 $50 (laundry and cleaning) + $42 (clothes) + $400 (entertainment, gifts, vacation) + $520 (auto 4 expenses) + $599 (credit card payments) + $999 (car payment) = $8,715.50. Husband’s average 5 net monthly income of approximately $9,442 therefore exceeds his stated monthly expenses, 6 including his $2,500 monthly spousal support obligation and his one-half share of the carrying 7 costs, by approximately $726.50 per month. 8 4) Husband’s attorney shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 9 5) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 10 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 11 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 12 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 13 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 14 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 15 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 16

20

24

28

29