Marriage of Nussbaum CA2/1

Filed 9/26/13 Marriage of Nussbaum CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re the Marriage of B243629 JONI and RICHARD NUSSBAUM, ___________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD317210) JONI NUSSBAUM,

Respondent, v.

RICHARD NUSSBAUM,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David S. Cunningham III, Judge. Affirmed. ______ Law Offices of Peter J. Porter and Peter J. Porter for Appellant. Brian M. Moore, a Law Corporation and Brian M. Moore for Respondent. ______

Richard Nussbaum appeals from an order on the motion of Joni Elson (formerly Joni Nussbaum) to determine spousal support arrearages. The sole issue he raises on appeal is a challenge to the superior court’s interpretation of a particular spousal support provision of the judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND On July 14, 2005, the superior court entered a status-only judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Nussbaum and Elson, reserving jurisdiction over all other issues. Several years later, the parties negotiated a resolution of the remaining issues, and on June 29, 2009, the court entered a stipulated judgment, approved by both Nussbaum and Elson as to both form and content, reflecting the parties’ agreement. Paragraph 19 of the judgment specifies the amounts Nussbaum is required to pay Elson “as and for spousal support.” Under paragraph 19(b), he is to pay her “$4,000.00 per month payable one-half on the first and one-half on the fifteenth day of each consecutive month commencing effective January 1, 2009 and continuing until death of either party, [Elson’s] remarriage, or further order of court.” Paragraph 19(b) provides in relevant part as follows: “As and for additional spousal support for the benefit of [Elson], [Nussbaum] shall pay to [Elson] 32% of his ‘gross income’ (as defined hereinbelow) in excess of $200,000 each calendar year, except that the amount of such additional spousal support due from [Nussbaum] to [Elson] shall be reduced by 32% of [Elson’s] ‘gross income’ in excess of $30,000.00 during that subject calendar year. However, [Nussbaum’s] maximum obligation for additional spousal support under this paragraph 19b shall not exceed $75,000.00 for any calendar year (in addition to the $48,000 per year due under paragraph 19a above). For purposes of this paragraph ‘gross income’ of either party shall include all pre-tax income (without deductions for taxes, expenses, or otherwise) received by, paid to, or on behalf of either party, from all sources; except that there shall be a presumption, pending further order of court, that 20% of any 1099 self-employment income is needed for reasonable and legitimate business expenses pertaining to said income and accordingly, in calculating ‘gross income,’ only 80% of the total 1099 self-employment income shall be used.