Phung v. Phung CA2/4

Filed 12/19/13 Phung v. Phung CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

HONG NGHI PHUNG, B247633

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GD042939) v.

PAULINE PHAN TAT PHUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Harvey A. Silberman, Judge. Affirmed. Pauline Phan Tat Phung, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Pauline Phan Tat Phung (Pauline) appeals from an order granting a post- judgment motion by Hong Nghi Phung (Hong) to enforce a provision of the judgment of marital dissolution providing in part that Hong was entitled to equalization payments from his ex-wife Pauline for his interest in the family residence. Based on a stipulation of the parties, the court ordered in part that Pauline pay Hong $12,054 for past due equalization payments, within 45 days of Hong signing loan documents necessary to refinance the mortgage on the residence. On appeal, Pauline contends that the trial court erred in ordering her to pay Hong this amount. However, the fact that she stipulated to make this payment forecloses her ability to challenge the order on appeal. Even absent the stipulation, however, Pauline has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 4, 2009, a judgment was entered dissolving Pauline’s and Hong’s marriage.1 As relevant here, the judgment provided for equalization payments by Pauline to Hong in the sum of $88,000, to be paid in 80 monthly installments of $1,000, payable on the first day of each month, commencing January 1, 2009. The judgment also ordered Hong to pay monthly child support to Pauline in the amount of $556 and monthly spousal support in the amount of $250, also commencing January 1, 2009. The judgment provided that both the monthly child support and spousal support payments “shall be an offset against $1,100 per month payable by [Pauline] to [Hong] for his interest in the family residence for 80