Marriage of Reskey CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 2024 No. G062657Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant was equitably estopped from denying her remarriage after she publicly represented herself as married on social media, thereby justifying the termination of her spousal support.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the appellant equitably estopped from denying her remarriage.
Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the respondent relied to his detriment on the appellant's public representations of remarriage.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Laura was equitably estopped “from denying her public representations and conduct which show she has remarried.””

“The trial court expressly found Laura’s denials that she married Rudolph were “untruthful and deceitful.””

Filed 11/5/24 Marriage of Reskey CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of LAURA and KEVIN RESKEY.

LAURA RESKEY, G062657 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 10D011259) v. OPINION KEVIN RESKEY,

Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carmen R. Luege, Judge. Affirmed. Quinn & Dworakowski, David Dworakowski and Stephane Quinn for Appellant.

Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall, Lisa R. McCall and Erica Barbero for Respondent. * * * Laura Reskey appeals from a postjudgment order in which the trial court terminated her right to continue receiving monthly spousal support payments from her ex-husband, Kevin Reskey, on the ground that 1 Laura was estopped to deny she had remarried. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Laura and Kevin married in June 1993 and separated in August 2010.2 In November 2011, they executed a stipulated marital settlement agreement, which was entered as a judgment later that month. The judgment ordered Kevin to pay spousal support to Laura in the amount of $8,500 per month “continuing until the remarriage of [Laura], the death of either party, further stipulation of the parties, or further court order, whichever occurs first.” On July 16, 2021, Kevin filed a request for order (RFO) asking the trial court to terminate his spousal support obligation on the ground that Laura had remarried or, alternatively, to reduce or eliminate spousal support based on a material change in circumstances, including that Laura was cohabiting with her fiancé, Thomas Charles “Chuck” Rudolph (Rudolph); her income had significantly increased since the spousal support order was

Marriage of Reskey CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GOODING, J.

GOETHALS, ACTING P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

AI Brief