Hartman v. Hartman CA1/4

Filed 3/17/25 Hartman v. Hartman CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

ELENA HARTMAN, Petitioner and Appellant, A169243 v. MICHAEL HARTMAN, (San Mateo County Super. Respondent and Appellee. Ct. No. 19-FAM-02147)

Elena Hartman appeals from the trial court’s statement of decision resolving financial matters arising from her divorce with Michael Hartman.1 Elena argues that the trial court’s decision does not account for Michael’s stocks and stock options as income in its calculations for spousal and child support, and that, notwithstanding her failure to object, the trial court should have excluded portions of Michael’s trial testimony on hearsay and other grounds. Michael did not file a brief on appeal. The trial court relied on the parties’ premarital agreement and the formula it contains to calculate spousal support. It concluded that a guideline child support award was appropriate, but that Michael’s current income—in the form of stocks—could not, at the time of the trial, be deemed actual income for purposes of calculating child support. The court deferred

1 The parties share a surname, so we refer to them by their first names.

1

inclusion of any stock, stock options, or similar forms of compensation in the income calculation until such assets could be valued more precisely, at which point they would be deemed actual income subject to the guideline support calculation. We affirm, concluding that Elena has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion. BACKGROUND Elena and Michael were married in 2010 and separated in 2019. In 2023, the court held a five-day trial on all financial matters arising from the parties’ 2020 divorce. The parties had a valid and binding premarital agreement, and after trial they entered into a partial settlement agreement. The premarital agreement set forth a formula for calculating spousal support, which the court applied to determine that Elena owed Michael $33,627 in support annually for two years. The trial court also ordered child support using the standard guideline, along with an annual “true-up” process requiring the parties to exchange actual income information and to make equalizing payments accordingly. The court denied Elena’s request to impute income to Michael, citing the evidence regarding his ability and opportunity to work, his earning capacity as compared to his actual income, and the specific circumstances set forth in Family Code section 4058, subdivision (b)(2). The court explained that Elena bore the burden to present evidence regarding Michael’s earning capacity, but that it had insufficient information to impute income to him. The court considered the testimony provided by the parties’ experts regarding Michael’s work and noted Michael’s unpaid role as a consultant to a company that offered him stock as compensation, rather than cash. “Whenever [cash] compensation is received,” the court explained, “that