Marriage of Berris CA1/5

Filed 2/22/16 Marriage of Berris CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re the Marriage of DENNIS and PANAGIOTA BERRIS.

DENNIS BERRIS, A144583 Appellant, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSD13-01039) PANAGIOTA BERRIS, Respondent.

In an April 18, 2014 stipulated family law dissolution judgment, the court assigned appellant Dennis Berris responsibility for the IRS tax liabilities for tax years 2010 and 2011. The IRS deducted the amounts owed for these tax years from respondent Panagiota Berris’s 2013 tax refund. Panagiota1 filed a petition seeking reimbursement from Dennis. Not surprisingly, the court granted the petition. Dennis appeals. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We are more than somewhat handicapped in our review by the very limited and inadequate record provided by Dennis. The clerk’s transcript contains the register of actions, Panagiota’s request for order, a responsive declaration from Dennis (with

1 We refer to each party by first name because of their shared surname. No disrespect is intended.

1

attachments), a minute order, an order after hearing, and little more. No transcript is provided of the January 23, 2015 hearing at which the contested order was issued. The register of actions indicates that on April 17, 2014, the parties appeared before a family law judge, were sworn, and confirmed they had reached a settlement of all issues in their pending marital dissolution proceeding. The court granted a dissolution judgment (Judgment), and a stipulation of the parties was attached to the Judgment and incorporated by reference. The Judgment was filed the following day. No copy of the Judgment or stipulation is included in the record.2 On September 10, 2014, Panagiota filed a request for order in which she averred that Dennis “was assigned and obligated to pay the IRS tax liabilities for 2010 and 2011 per the divorce order issued April 17, 2014.” She declared that Dennis had failed to pay those obligations and, as a result, the IRS deducted a total of $2,286.40 from her 2013 tax refund to satisfy those liabilities. She sought reimbursement for this amount. In opposition, Dennis submitted a declaration alleging that the disputed tax liabilities were “satisfied on April 15, 2014,” and that there were no open tax liabilities for tax years 2010 and 2011 on the date of the Judgment. He attached IRS account transcripts for the two tax years.3 A contested hearing was held on January 23, 2015. The court struck Dennis’s declaration as untimely, but allowed both parties to “orally address the court about the issues raised in [Panagiota’s] request.” As noted ante, no transcript of this hearing has been provided. The minute order from the hearing, and an order after hearing (Order)