Marriage of Garlinger CA2/6

Filed 126/16 Marriage of Garlinger CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re Marriage of CHERYL and JOHN 2d Civil No. B256560 GARLINGER. (Super. Ct. No. D334232) (Ventura County)

CHERYL GARLINGER,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN GARLINGER,

Respondent.

Cheryl Garlinger appeals an April 11, 2014 post-judgment order increasing 1 her spousal support from $2,250 to $3,000 a month. Cheryl contends that the trial court abused its discretion in not ordering her ex-husband, John Garlinger, to pay $5,250 a month support. We affirm and deny John's request for sanctions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(b)(1); Estate of Gilkison (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1450 [discussing former rule 26(e)].) We also deny appellant's request for sanctions.

1 For the sake of clarity and convenience to the reader, we refer to the parties by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

Facts & Procedural History Cheryl and John separated on June 25, 2009, ending a 22-year marriage. They have two children who are now emancipated. Following trial, a judgment of marital dissolution was entered on October 7, 2011 dividing the community assets and debts. John was ordered to pay $3,123 a 2 month child support and $2,250 spousal support based on the following support findings: John's gross monthly income was $17,414 as a FedEx commercial pilot. Cheryl's imputed income was $1,733 a month income based on her education, prior employment as a geologist, and ability to work. The spousal support order included a Gavron warning (In re Marriage of Gavron (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 705, 711-712) that Cheryl was to make reasonable good faith efforts to find permanent, full-time employment and be employed by at least June 2014 when the youngest child graduated from high school. The judgment provided that termination of child support would not constitute an "automatic" change of circumstances to support an increase in spousal 3 support. (Fam. Code, § 4326, subd. (d).) OSC to Modify Support After judgment was entered, Cheryl delayed looking for work and got a job as a substitute teacher in the Spring of 2013, almost four years after date of separation. Cheryl, however, was injured in an auto accident on April 13, 2013 and stopped working. Rather than sue for personal injuries, Cheryl filed an OSC to modify support. Because John's monthly income as a commercial pilot varied, the trial court used John's 2013 average monthly income, $19,210 a month, which represented a $2,300 per month increase in income since time of trial in 2011 ($17,414). At the hearing on the OSC, Cheryl claimed that she suffered from asthma, high blood pressure, degenerating cervical disks and hip pain, all of which was aggravated by the April 2013 car accident and precluded her from working. The trial 2 In 2013, child support was reduced to $2,544 a month. 3 All statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise stated.