Marriage of Sakov and Adut CA1/1

Filed 9/12/14 Marriage of Sakov and Adut CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re the Marriage of JOSHUA SAKOV and ESTER ADUT. JOSHUA SAKOV, Respondent, A140449

v. (San Mateo County ESTER ADUT, Super. Ct. No. FAM071155) Appellant.

INTRODUCTION In yet another appeal arising from this exceptionally litigious family law proceeding, appellant Ester Adut appeals from the trial court’s order terminating respondent Joshua Sakov’s obligation to pay spousal support.1 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The history of this proceeding is well known to the parties and this court. We need not recite it here. On October 26, 2010, respondent filed an order to show cause (OSC) to terminate spousal support.

1 Once again, respondent has elected not to file a brief. Because no respondent’s brief was filed, we will decide the present appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by appellant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2), former rule 17(a); Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 334.) 1

On December 7, 2010, appellant filed a responsive declaration opposing the OSC. The matter was heard on December 9, 2010. On May 31, 2011, the trial court filed its order after hearing in which it ordered spousal support terminated as of December 31, 2010. On December 8, 2011, appellant filed an application to set aside the support order under Family Code section 3691. As grounds for her request, she alleged fraud, perjury, and lack of notice. Specifically, she claimed she had not been given notice that the trial court would be making an order addressing the length of the parties’ marriage. She also asserted that respondent or his attorney committed perjury in advising the court that he had continuously paid spousal support. On October 31, 2012, the trial court filed its order after hearing granting appellant’s request to set aside the May 31, 2011 order terminating spousal support. Among its findings, the court observed respondent and his attorney had “substantially misstate[d]” the length of time he had paid spousal support to appellant. The court concluded the decision to terminate spousal support had been made in reliance “on false information provided by [respondent].” Respondent did not appeal from this order. On December 17, 2012, respondent filed a request for a temporary order staying his spousal support obligation pending hearing. On January 7, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on respondent’s request. The trial court denied the request for the stay. The court also noted that respondent had not explicitly requested modification or termination of support. His attorney stated that he did not file a motion because “with that [May 31, 2011] order set aside we are now back to where my client’s [October 2010] motion to modify or terminate spousal support is now to be heard . . . .” On January 9, 2013, the trial court filed its order after hearing. The order reflects the matter was continued to January 14, 2013 for further hearing “on [respondent’s] motion filed 10/26/2010 to terminate or modify spousal support.”