Marriage of Miessner and Gobo CA2/6

Filed 8/19/25 Marriage of Miessner and Gobo CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Marriage of MIESSNER 2d Civ. No. B337244 and GOBO. (Super. Ct. No. D385508) (Ventura County)

THOMAS MIESSNER,

Appellant,

v.

AMANDA GOBO,

Respondent;

VENTURA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Intervener and Respondent.

Thomas Miessner appeals a judgment of dissolution of marriage between himself and respondent Amanda Gobo. The trial court entered two judgments. No wonder Miessner was

uncertain about the date of the final judgment. His appeal is timely. Nevertheless, we affirm because he has not produced a record of the proceedings. We conclude, among other things, that Miessner has not shown the court erred in deciding division of community property, separate property, reimbursement, his obligations, and sanctions. FACTS Miessener and Gobo were married for nine years seven months. They had two children, twins, born in June 2014. Miessner petitioned for dissolution of his marriage with his wife Gobo. The parties stipulated that their “date of separation” was January 1, 2018. The parties set the case “for trial” with hearings on October 19 and 20, and December 6, 2023. The court heard testimony involving: 1) permanent spousal support “in lieu of pendente lite support,” 2) child support, 3) child custody and visitation, 4) the division of community property assets and debts, 5) “reimbursements,” and 6) attorney fees and other issues. Miessner has not provided a reporter’s transcript of that trial or a settled statement. In its “judgment” after trial, the court found, among other things, that the parties’ Shadow Brook Lane property is a community asset. Miessner’s claim that it was his separate property acquired with separate funds from the sale of his Crossglade home, “which he purchased before this marriage,” was not true. Miessner “failed to produce any credible evidence supporting his claim.” The court found, “[Gobo] notes that the Shadow Brook home was purchased before the stipulated date of separation, making it presumptively a community property asset, pursuant to Family Code [section] 2581. She further notes that