Marriage of Foscalina CA3

Filed 9/27/13 Marriage of Foscalina CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

In re the Marriage of JOEL J. and BRIDGETT L. FOSCALINA. C072148 JOEL J. FOSCALINA, (Super. Ct. No. FL63924) Appellant,

v.

BRIDGETT L. FOSCALINA,

Respondent.

Appellant Joel J. Foscalina appeals from two trial court orders, an order denying his motion for spousal support and an order denying his motions to compel and for reconsideration. Finding none of his claims to have merit, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND In December 2011, Joel filed a postjudgment motion for spousal support. In support of his motion, Joel filed a current income and expense declaration and argued there had been “several changes in circumstances” since his last motion for spousal support. Joel said he was unemployed, living in his car, and had no income. Joel also said he was on the “out-of-work list” with the carpenters‟ union and was getting financial support from his parents. In Joel‟s estimation, respondent Bridgett L. Foscalina, had a greater ability to earn money than he did based on her training and experience as an x-ray technician, and she was no longer supporting their adult son. At the hearing on Joel‟s motion, the trial court reminded the parties that the hearing on Joel‟s motion was set “only to give each party the opportunity to cross- examine on income and expense information.” The court also told Joel that the court was not required to take oral testimony but could, in its discretion, take the matter under submission based solely on the written evidence and arguments. Joel then proceeded to testify about his unsuccessful efforts to find employment. In response to the court‟s questioning, Joel acknowledged that he also was not working when he previously moved for spousal support in August 2011. Bridgett also testified. Bridgett advised the trial court that, physically, she could no longer work as an x-ray technician, she lacked the stamina required to do the job. Bridgett was, however, working and making $18 an hour. After hearing the parties‟ testimony and considering the income and expense declarations on file the trial court found there had been no change of circumstances since judgment was entered in September 2011. The court based its decision on the fact that Joel was not working when the judgment was entered in September 2011 and he was not working at the time of the hearing. The court also noted that, according to the evidence, Joel had not even begun looking for work until March 8, 2012, only a month before the