Saria v. Soriano CA4/1

Filed 12/13/24 Saria v. Soriano CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AIMEE D. SARIA, D082033

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. DS39513) v.

JAMES SORIANO,

Respondent.

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carlos Varela, Judge. Affirmed. Bickford Blado & Botros and Andrew J. Botros for Appellant. Law Offices of Beatrice L. Snider, Alexandria M. Jones and John L. Romaker for Respondent. Aimee D. Saria appeals a postjudgment order in which the superior court credited her ex-husband, James Soriano, for child support payments he had made for periods in which the parties’ children lived with him. She contends the trial court erred in awarding the credits. We disagree, and therefore we affirm.

I. Background Saria and Soriano are the parents of two children, Nicole and Isabella. In a stipulated judgment of dissolution entered in 2010, the superior court ordered joint physical custody, joint legal custody, and “[r]easonable right[s] of visitation as mutually agreed between the parties,” and it further ordered that Soriano was to pay Saria monthly child support in the amounts of $419 for Nicole and $762 for Isabella. Eventually, Saria moved out of state and the children began living primarily with Soriano—even as he continued making child support payments to Saria. In addition, with the passage of time, Soriano accumulated arrearages in amounts owed to Saria for matters other than child support. Several years after the children had commenced living primarily with Soriano, Saria petitioned the superior court to address the arrearages, and Soriano petitioned the court to credit him for the child support payments he had made to Saria for periods when the children lived with him. The court entered an order granting relief to Saria with respect to the arrearages, and crediting Soriano for the child support payments. Each party appealed the order insofar as it granted relief to the other. Soriano’s appeal is not before us now because, in an order entered earlier this year, we granted a motion by Saria to dismiss Soriano’s appeal on