Marriage of Pennington CA3

Filed 7/18/16 Marriage of Pennington CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ----

In re the Marriage of BRIAN and SHELLY C079962 JUANITA PENNINGTON. (Super. Ct. No. 12FC4930) BRIAN PENNINGTON,

Appellant,

v.

SHELLY JUANITA PENNINGTON,

Respondent.

Appellant Brian Pennington appeals in propria persona from a court order granting his motion to reduce spousal support.1 Brian raises a single claim on appeal: He

1 As the parties have the same surname, we will refer to them by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

1

contends the trial court miscalculated the reduction in support based on a misunderstanding of “the facts” and “evidence considered that may have been false.” Brian’s claim is not supported by the record. Accordingly, we shall affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Brian has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the hearing in this matter. This is referred to as a “judgment roll” appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)

The limited record we have establishes that on June 30, 2015, the trial court presided over an evidentiary hearing on Brian’s motion to modify spousal support. Brian and respondent Shelly Juanita Pennington were both present at that hearing. Brian was represented by counsel; Shelly represented herself. Evidence in the form of oral testimony and written documents was admitted and the matter was taken under submission.

On July 1, 2015, the trial court issued a written decision (order after hearing). In that decision, the trial court noted the original order for support issued in September 2013 and compelled Brian to pay Shelly $1,000 a month in spousal support. The court also recounted some of the evidence submitted at trial. In particular, the court noted that since September 2013, Brian lost his job and, at the time of the hearing, was receiving only $450 a week in unemployment benefits. This was a significant reduction from the $1,200 a week Brian was receiving in September 2013. The court also found Brian was paying the mortgage on the family home, awarded to him in the judgment, and had filed bankruptcy to discharge debts incurred during the dissolution and medical bills.