Piercy v. Piercy CA1/3

Filed 1/12/26 Piercy v. Piercy CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

TYLA PIERCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172226 v. ERICK MICHAEL PIERCY, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. FAM0132753) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Erick Piercy appeals the trial court’s order granting the request of plaintiff Tyla Piercy for modification of timeshare and child support orders. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2016, Tyla petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Erick.1 The parties were granted joint legal custody of their three children. In March 2019, the parties stipulated to Erick’s payment of guideline child support in the amount of $775 per month, which was based his allocated timeshare with the children of 45 percent. In February 2023, Tyla filed a Request for Order (“RFO”) seeking a modification of the existing custody and child support orders. At the

1 Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them by their first names for clarity and intend no disrespect.

1

conclusion of a hearing on November 28, 2023, the trial court modified the parties’ timeshares, setting Tyla’s at 67 percent and Erick’s at 33 percent. This modification was reflected in the court’s “Findings and Order after Hearing” filed on January 4, 2024. The court, however, did not rule on the request to modify support at that point. In April 2024, regarding her pending request to modify child support, Tyla submitted information reflected in a 14-page chart (“Exhibit A”) that showed her timeshare of the children from March 14, 2023 through May 31, 2024 was 66.77 percent. In June, Tyla offered additional information showing her timeshare was slightly higher, at 67.48 percent. Erick’s opposition brief challenged Tyla’s timekeeping and contended his recent layoff and loss of income necessitated an alternate modification. However, he offered no evidence bearing on the parties’ timeshares or otherwise contradicting the information and calculations in Exhibit A. Instead, his brief argued: “[Tyla] has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate any deviations in the timeshare percentages. Therefore, it would be inequitable for the court to order arrearages based on a hypothetical timeshare percentage instead of the actual timeshare percentage established in the court order.” On June 12, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the matter. The Department of Child Support Services appeared and explained that, after a meet and confer, the parties agreed to calculate child support based on two different calculations: one that accounted for Erick’s unemployment beginning June 1, 2024 and a second one that covered the period before that. For purposes of the support calculation beginning on June 1, Erick’s severance pay and unemployment insurance benefits were included. Though the parties disagreed over Tyla’s income and timeshare calculations, there