Marriage of Harrison CA4/3

Filed 11/6/13 Marriage of Harrison CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of KEVIN F. and LINDA C. HARRISON.

KEVIN F. HARRISON, G046942 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08D000001) v. OPINION LINDA C. HARRISON,

Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Claudia Silbar, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Ronald B. Funk and Ronald B. Funk for Appellant. Kevin F. Harrison, in pro. per., for Respondent.

* * *

Appellant Linda C. Harrison (wife) appeals from a judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Kevin F. Harrison (husband). She raises only one issue, that there is insufficient evidence to support the date of separation selected by the trial court. Based on wife’s failure to fully set out all the material facts as to the date of separation and the presumption the court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

We present the procedural history here and set out the facts presented in the briefs in the discussion portion. Husband filed the petition for dissolution in this action in January 2008. He claimed a separation date of June 15, 2003. In wife’s response to the petition the date of separation was shown as “to be determined.” In her testimony and closing argument she asserted a separation date of December 2008. Wife had previously filed a petition in January of 2007, of which the court took judicial notice, that showed a separation date of January 8, 2007. Wife testified that “immediately” after she signed the petition, she notified her lawyer she did not want to proceed.1 That petition was dismissed in August 2007. After a two-day hearing the court found the date of separation “that best fit[] the totality of the circumstances” to be January 8, 2007. This was what wife stated was the date of separation in her petition filed in January 2007. In reaching its decision the court evaluated the testimony of both parties and the documentary evidence. It noted the case was “factually unusual.” It found the parties had had no intimate relationship for years before that date. Wife had been involved in a serious relationship with another man, Steve