Garcia v. Arreola CA2/4

Filed 8/20/24 Garcia v. Arreola CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

ELSA GARCIA, B333148

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LD050064) v.

RODOLFO ARREOLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn M. Mordetzky, Commissioner. Remanded with directions. Law Offices of Grace White and Grace White for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Appellant Rodolfo Arreola and respondent Elsa Garcia were married for six years and nine months. After a trial on May 15, 2023, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution (the judgment). The judgment states the “only community property [assets] are the proceeds from the sale of [the] family residence . . . which are currently held in trust by [Garcia’s attorneys].” The court ordered as follows: (1) “[T]he $30,000 judgment in case number 18STLC08420 is [Arreola’s] separate debt”; (2) “[T]he $30,000 relocation assistance for Aileen and Bryan Arreola is [Arreola’s] separate debt”; (3) “[Arreola’s] portion of the proceeds [of the sale of the residence] is $41,559.30”; and (4) “[Arreola] was given notice of Family Code Section 271 sanctions and is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $5,000 to [Garcia’s attorneys].” Arreola filed a request for order (RFO) based on his belief that the trial court made a mathematical error in calculating his portion of the proceeds from the sale of the family home. He contended that, based on his calculations, he is entitled to $66,455.15, not $41,559.30 as the court ordered. The trial court denied the RFO, stating the court “does not find a change of circumstance with the Judgment.” Arreola timely appealed.