Tisino v. Allan CA2/5

Filed 11/26/24 Tisino v. Allan CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

TRACY TISINO, B332932

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18STFL01866) v.

COLLINS ALLAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christine Byrd, Judge. Affirmed. Eloche P. Ukeje for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

Collins Allan (Allan) and Tracy Tisino (Tisino) married in 1997, and Tisino filed for divorce in 2018. Following a five-day trial, the trial court entered a spousal support order. Allan challenges the Ostler-Smith1 provision in that order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional requirements, via a written opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1261-1264.) Allan challenges the trial court’s spousal support order requiring him to pay 10 percent of his “gross revenues from any . . . source” other than his income from his employer Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), arguing that this aspect of the ruling “does not take into [account] that in the future, [Allan ] may no longer work for [LADOT],” and may earn less working for a different employer, “which could also be less than what [Tisino] earns at that time.” We review a trial court’s spousal support order for abuse of discretion.2 (Ostler & Smith, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 50