Marriage of Akhavain CA4/3

Filed 3/5/14 Marriage of Akhavain 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MARK O. and CAROLINE M. AKHAVAIN.

MARK O. AKHAVAIN, G047772 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 11D008828) v. OPINION CAROLINE M. AKHAVAIN,

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Burch & Coulston, Robert Burch and Courtney L. Shepard for Appellant. Phillips Whisnant Gazin Gorczyca & Curtin and J. Benedict Phillips for Respondent.

* * *

Mark O. Akhavain (husband) appeals from an order awarding Caroline M. Akhavain (wife) $3,368 per month in temporary child support and $10,222 per month in temporary spousal support, both retroactive to October 2011. Husband contends the court lacked jurisdiction to issue that order. We disagree and affirm the order.

FACTS

The parties married in June 2002 and have one minor child over 11 years old. In September 2011, wife petitioned to dissolve the marriage and filed an order to show cause (OSC) requesting, among other things, temporary child and spousal support. The trial court signed and filed a stipulation and order on temporary orders executed by the parties five days earlier, which provided, inter alia, that husband would pay $3,000 per month to wife and that custody, support, and other financial issues would be heard on an expedited basis. In support of wife’s OSC, she filed an income and expense declaration stating the parties’ marital standard of living was characterized by spending over $24,000 a month. Husband’s responsive declaration, filed on September 20 averred he had a negative gross income of over $300,000, increasing each year between 2006 and 2009. His concurrently filed income and expense declaration stated he had negative income, “deminimis” funds in bank accounts, “[u]nknown” “[s]tocks, bonds and other assets,” and real and personal property in an amount “TBD.” The OSC hearing took place over several days. At its conclusion on October 27, the court agreed with wife that “[d]ue to [husband’s] numerous business investments and interests, and an utter lack of documentation presented at this hearing[,] . . . a forensic accountant is necessary to determine [husband’s] true month cash flow available for support.” It then ordered husband “to continue paying [wife] $3,000 per month as pendente lite family support for both [wife] and the minor child”