Marriage of Van't Rood and Thompson CA6

Filed 6/30/14 Marriage of Van’t Rood and Thompson CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of RICHARD VAN’T H039254 ROOD and JENNIFER THOMPSON. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. FL032131)

RICHARD VAN’T ROOD,

Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER THOMPSON,

Respondent.

Appellant Richard van’t Rood challenges a post dissolution order denying his request for spousal support modification. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the order. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS On July 24, 2012, on reserved issues in a marital dissolution proceeding, the trial court entered a judgment on spousal support and property division pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The agreement provided that appellant pay respondent $1,942 per month spousal support, with that sum never to increase. The agreement further provided: “Spousal support shall be reviewed on October 4, 2012 in the above-mentioned Court. The parties shall exchange Income and Expense Declarations by September 21, 2012. At the review on October 4, 2012 the Court shall use a DissoMaster calculation for spousal

support. There shall not be a [Family Code section] 4320 analysis at that time. The Court may hear a 4320 Motion after October 4, 2012, to further review spousal support.” The agreement further provided that “support shall continue until remarriage of wife, death of either party, further order of the Court or March 31, 2020 at which time the Court’s jurisdiction to award spousal support to either party shall terminate.”1 In September 2012, the parties filed income and expense declarations. Respondent appeared pro per at the October 4, 2012 review hearing at which time the court ordered the $1,942 monthly spousal support to remain in effect. According to the minute order, appellant was not present at the hearing and was later advised of the order made in his absence. On November 15, 2012, appellant filed a request to modify spousal support, supported by an income and expense declaration, a memorandum of points and authorities, and a declaration. Appellant explained that the motion was intended to establish a marital standard of living “at less than $1,942 per month.” Appellant claimed that respondent had a monthly earning capacity of $3,000 to $5,000, and at least $3,000 in monthly income should be imputed to respondent because she was not making a reasonable effort to find work. Appellant asked the court to terminate or modify the existing order, but he made no claim that there had been any change in circumstances since issuance of the last spousal support order. Respondent opposed the request, setting forth by declaration her efforts to seek and maintain employment, her inability at times to cover her expenses without borrowing money, her $7,500 indebtedness to her former attorney, and the burden of responding to the ongoing litigation as a layperson. Respondent asked the court “to maintain the