Marriage of Vigeant CA3

Filed 9/30/20 Marriage of Vigeant CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

In re the Marriage of JULIE and CHRIS VIGEANT. C089783

JULIE VIGEANT, (Super. Ct. No. 16FL00360)

Appellant,

v.

CHRIS VIGEANT,

Respondent.

Appellant Julie Vigeant, representing herself, appeals from an award of spousal support in a judgment of dissolution of her marriage to respondent Chris Vigeant. Appellant argues that, for a variety of reasons,1 the trial court’s award of $300 per month

1 Specifically, appellant argues that the trial court erred by (1) denying her an equal share of respondent’s Social Security Disability Insurance benefits; (2) denying her any

1

is too low and that the judgment should therefore be reversed. We will affirm the judgment due to appellant’s failure to provide an adequate record to permit appellate review. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Although our ability to review this matter has been severely hampered by the inadequate appellate record, we have discerned the following procedural history. In April 2016, after more than 11 years of marriage, appellant filed a petition for legal separation from respondent. In connection with the petition, appellant also requested an order of spousal support. In support of her request for spousal support, appellant declared that she was indigent, living on food stamps, and had been homeless since June 2015. After a hearing, the court awarded temporary spousal support in the amount of $737 a month. In August 2017, apparently at respondent’s request, the court reduced the amount of spousal support to $300 per month. Appellant then filed a series of requests seeking to increase the amount of spousal support. Appellant primarily argued that she was unemployed and had no source of income, whereas respondent received monthly Social Security Disability Insurance and motion picture retirement benefits. All of appellant’s requests to increase her spousal support were denied. On May 7, 2019, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued a minute order granting dissolution of marriage and ordering respondent to continue paying spousal support to appellant in the amount of $300 per month. In its order, the court concluded that respondent’s Social Security and motion picture retirement benefits were separate