Williams v. Anderson CA2/3

Filed 12/29/20 Williams v. Anderson CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CARMON NACOLE WILLIAMS, B296149

Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18STFL00431) v.

LENARD ANDERSON,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael R. Powell, Judge. Affirmed. Carmon Nacole Williams, in pro. per., for Appellant. Edmond E. Salem for Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Appellant Carmon Nacole Williams appeals from an order denying her motion to set aside a temporary spousal support order and recalculate spousal support. We conclude the record is insufficient to allow us to conduct a meaningful appellate review of Williams’s claim, and thus we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Williams and respondent Lenard Anderson were married in 2011 and separated in 2017. Williams filed a marital dissolution petition in January 2018, which remains pending. On May 31, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on Williams’s request for temporary spousal support. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered Anderson to pay Williams spousal support of $1,500 per month. On November 13, 2018, Williams filed a motion pursuant to Family Code section 3691 to set aside the support order on grounds of fraud and perjury, and to recalculate support. Williams contended that Anderson had not disclosed all of his income prior to the May hearing, had recently transferred his largest income-producing property to his son, and had transferred large sums of money from a bank account in violation of the automatic temporary restraining order. Williams thus asked the court to set aside the prior order, recalculate spousal support based on Anderson’s previously undisclosed income, and sanction Anderson for perjury. During the January 4, 2019 hearing on Williams’s motion, the court asked when Williams became aware of the alleged fraud and perjury, and whether the facts on which the motion was based had been available to Williams prior to the May 2018 hearing. Williams’s attorney did not indicate when Williams learned of the relevant facts, but said Williams had not been able