Ziyad v. Ziyad CA1/1

Filed 10/28/14 Ziyad v. Ziyad CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

GINA W. ZIYAD, Respondent, A141194 v. NIGEL A. ZIYAD, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RF08404954) Appellant.

Following a contested hearing in April 2013, appellant Nigel A. Ziyad was ordered to pay his former spouse, respondent Gina W. Ziyad, monthly child support.1 Unhappy with the order, Nigel has sought to have it modified on several occasions. In this appeal, Nigel challenges the trial court’s denial of such a request in January of this year. We conclude that Nigel has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request, and we therefore affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gina filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in August 2008, and the petition was granted, effective December 31, 2009. According to the register of actions, the parties have continued to litigate various matters, including child custody, child-support payments, and visitation.

1 For the sake of clarity, we refer to the parties by their first names since they share the same surname. (In re Marriage of Leonard (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 546, 550, fn. 2 (Leonard).)

1

Nigel and Gina have three children, two of whom (teenaged twins) are the subject of the order Nigel challenges. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered on April 24, 2013,2 that Nigel pay $1,252 each month to support the twins (April 24 order). Attached to the court’s order is a computer printout showing both parents’ incomes and the percentage of time each parent spends with the children. But our record includes no transcript of the hearing. At oral argument in this court, Nigel discussed some of his income and expenses reflected in the clerk’s transcript, but nothing in the record identifies what specific evidence was relied upon by the trial court in issuing the April 24 order. Nigel apparently has tried a few times to have the April 24 order modified and also has sought changes to the parties’ child-custody arrangement. The register of actions reveals that a court trial was held on October 2, though it is unclear what happened at the trial because the appellate record again includes no transcript of it or any resulting order. In any event, we know that Nigel filed a request to modify the April 24 order the day after the October 2 trial.3 In this request, he alleged that he had insufficient income to cover the support payments and was employed only part-time. He also alleged that the amount set by the court was “excessive, erroneous, and . . . would cause undue hardship.” He asked for the amount of the payments to be “reduced to a rate that is fair and reasonable considering the circumstances of the parties and the best interest of the children. The calculation should also include other factors such as visitation costs.” He further alleged that Gina “changed expenses to $1,468.00” in June 2013. Nigel filed a similar request on December 10, this time with additional allegations about the unfairness of the April 24 order.