Marriage of Lak CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jun 19, 2014 No. G048304Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the appellant's motion to set aside a marital dissolution judgment, holding that in the absence of a reporter's transcript or settled statement, it must presume the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the motion was untimely.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to set aside a judgment based on alleged perjury under Family Code section 2122(b).
Whether the appellant met the burden of demonstrating error in the absence of an adequate record of the hearing.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to restore a motion for modification of child support to the calendar.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“in the absence of a reporter’s transcript or a settled statement which summarizes the evidence presented at the hearing in the court below, we must presume that evidence was sufficient to support whatever factual determinations were necessary”

Filed 6/18/14 Marriage of Lak 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JENNIFER S. AND DANIEL K. LAK.

DANIEL K. LAK, G048304 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 09D001393) v. OPINION JENNIFER S. LAK,

Respondent,

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Respondent. Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard G. Vogl, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Daniel K. Lak, in pro. per., for Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Linda M. Gonzalez and Ricardo Enriquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent Orange County Department of Child Support Services.

No appearance by Respondent, Jennifer S. Lak.

* * *

Daniel K. Lak appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside a portion of the judgment in this marital dissolution action on the ground of perjury, pursuant to Family Code section 2122, subdivision. (b) (§ 2122(b); unless otherwise designated, all further statutory references are to this code). Specifically, Daniel sought to set aside the portion of the judgment establishing the amounts of spousal and child support he is obligated to pay his former wife, Jennifer, because she had allegedly understated her income level by a significant amount on her income and expense declaration. The respondent in this appeal is “the Public Interest,” represented by the local child support agency, Orange County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), and the state Attorney General, under sections 17406 and 17407. (See In re Marriage of LaMoure (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 807, 812.) On appeal, we are obligated to draw all inferences and indulge all presumptions in favor of the correctness of the challenged order. Consequently, where, as here, there is no record of the evidence presented at the hearing, we must presume that evidence was sufficient to support the court’s determination that Daniel failed to bring this motion in a timely fashion. On that basis, we affirm the order.

Marriage of Lak CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTS

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

THOMPSON, J.

AI Brief