Reynolds v. Reynolds

Opinion

THE COURT.

*

This is an appeal, in propria persona, from a child support order issued pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA) which directs that appellant Paul Reynolds pay $100 per month child support commencing August 1, 1977.

The order was made at hearing on July 29, 1977. On August 10, 1977, appellant filed notice of appeal “from the decision handed down on July 29, 1977.” The order re support was entered August 26, 1977. California Rules of Court, rule 2(c), provides: “A notice of appeal filed prior to entry of the judgment, but after its rendition, shall be valid and shall be deemed to have been filed immediately after entry. A notice of appeal filed prior to rendition of the judgment, but after the judge has announced his intended ruling, may, in the discretion of the reviewing

[734]

court for good cause, be treated as filed immediately after entry of the judgment.” In the absence of any showing of prejudice to respondent, “[w]e . . . feel constrained to treat the record as showing ‘good cause’ within rule 2(c) . . . though no good cause was actually shown by or on behalf of appellants.”

(Hohn

v.

Hohn

(1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 336, 340 [40 Cal.Rptr. 125];

Windsor Mills

v.

Richard B. Smith, Inc.

(1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 336, 339 [77 Cal.Rptr. 300];

Miller

v.

Johnston

(1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 289, 291, fn. 1 [75 Cal.Rptr. 699].)

Appellant requested a jury trial. He contends that under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, he was entitled to a jury trial and that his request was improperly denied. Respondent contends that “[t]he court exercises equitable powers in determining the amount of child support money to award.” The question of a juiy trial in a RURESA action in California has apparently never been decided, and whether the action is legal or equitable is in dispute.