Marriage of MacGillivray CA4/1

Filed 2/18/25 Marriage of MacGillivray 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re the Marriage of ANASTASIA and JOSHUA MACGILLIVRAY. D083469 ANASTASIA KALININA,

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FL015420N)

v.

JOSHUA MACGILLIVRAY,

Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew Brower, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua MacGillivray, in pro. per, for Appellant. Anastasia Kalinina, in pro. per, for Respondent.

Joshua MacGillivray appeals family court orders, entered after the judgment of dissolution of marriage, requiring him to pay spousal support to his former wife, Anastasia Kalinina. MacGillivray challenges both an order requiring him to pay support and the denial of his subsequent motion to

reconsider or set aside that order. He contends the family court erred in various ways, including that Kalinina defrauded the court by misrepresenting her assets and income. We affirm the orders.

BACKGROUND1 The parties were married in 2005 and have one minor child together. Kalinina filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage in 2019. In March 2021, the parties entered a marital separation agreement “regarding the characterization and distribution of marital assets and debts,” which

1 The record designated by MacGillivray does not contain many of the documents necessary to explain the background of the case. The designated record also does not contain the orders that MacGillivray is appealing. Kalinina, however, filed a motion to augment the record with the family court’s minute order addendum containing its ruling on MacGillivray’s motion to reconsider or set aside the spousal support order. Her motion to augment is granted with respect to the addendum, which provides the basis for this background. Kalinina’s motion also requests augmentation of the record to include her response to MacGillivray’s motion to set aside the judgment. The motion is also granted with respect to this document. In addition, MacGillivray filed two requests for judicial notice in this court. The first, filed on May 31, 2024, asks for judicial notice of Kalinina’s “Final Declaration of Disclosure Attachment” (exhibit 1); “Proof [Kalinina] has tenants living in her property she claimed at trial was inhabitable”, which consists of pages printed from a real estate website with MacGillivray’s comments and photographs (exhibit 2); and “Judges ruling on order to compel and proof other party refused to follow court order” (exhibit 3). The request is denied. The disclosure declaration, exhibit 1, is illegible and contains MacGillivray’s comments, which do not appear to be part of the trial court proceedings. Likewise, exhibit 3, contains redactions and comments that do not appear to be part of the original documents. Exhibit 2, the “Proof” of tenants, also post-dates the proceedings in the trial court, and is not information that is properly part of the appellate record or subject to judicial notice. MacGillivray’s second request, filed on July 23, 2024, asks this court to take judicial notice of two additional exhibits: (1) Kalinina’s bank account statements that were not presented in the trial court and (2) an excerpt of the judge’s trial notes from August 2023 with MacGillivray’s comments overlayed. This request is also denied. 2