Marriage of Browne CA1/5

Filed 5/27/14 Marriage of Browne CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re the Marriage of SHERRY BROWNE and JASON BROWNE.

SHERRY BROWNE, Respondent, A139607 v. (San Mateo County JASON BROWNE, Super. Ct. No. F0107505) Appellant.

Appellant Jason Browne appeals from a post-judgment order in this marital dissolution action (1) denying his request to impute income to respondent Sherry Browne1; (2) clarifying the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) to require Jason to pay child support on a certain percentage of his wage increases; and (3) awarding sanctions to Sherry pursuant to Family Code section 271.2 We affirm. BACKGROUND The parties’ marriage terminated in December 2011 pursuant to a judgment incorporating their MSA. Under the MSA, Sherry assumed primary physical custody of

1 For convenience, we hereafter refer to the parties by their first names. We do not intend this informality to reflect a lack of respect. 2 All undesignated section references are to the Family Code.

1

their two minor children and Jason paid her a monthly amount of child support based on his then-current salary.3 The MSA further provided for Jason to pay additional child support “on any bonus or additional income above this amount as and for child support as set forth in the attached bonus schedule.” The referenced “bonus schedule” is a computer-generated chart providing a varying percentage of “Father’s Bonus,” depending on the size of the bonus, be paid as child support.4 Sherry was not employed at the time judgment issued and had no income under the MSA for purposes of calculating child support. The MSA provided, “Jason will agree not to seek to have income imputed to [Sherry] before September 2011, when both children are in school. [Sherry] shall commence seeking work in September 2011 when both children are in school.”5 In January 2012, Jason filed a motion seeking, inter alia, to impute income to Sherry for purposes of child support or, in the alternative, an order that she apply to at least five jobs every two weeks. Jason also requested Sherry undergo vocational evaluation. In Sherry’s response, she readily agreed to undergo vocational evaluation. She stated she applied for 45 jobs between September 2011 and January 2012 but did not secure a single interview. Sherry had work experience but left the workforce in 2004, shortly after the birth of their first child. In light of the discouraging results of her job search, Sherry was taking concrete steps to pursue a career in nursing. Sherry stated she had conveyed this information to Jason and had provided him proof of her job search efforts. At the March 2012 hearing on Jason’s motion, the trial court declined to impute income, noting Sherry was out of the workforce “pretty much the entire length of the marriage. So we have to give her time to get back in, and we’ll see what the vocational evaluation is. And she’s to follow the recommendations in the vocational evaluation.”