Marriage of Weggeland CA3

Filed 3/3/22 Marriage of Weggeland CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

In re the Marriage of JOSEPH PATRICK and DIANE C091105 ROSEMARIE WEGGELAND.

JOSEPH PATRICK WEGGELAND, (Super. Ct. No. 176789)

Respondent,

v.

DIANE ROSEMARIE WEGGELAND,

Appellant.

Diane Rosemarie Weggeland appeals from a postjudgment order modifying a 2015 judgment that required her former husband, respondent Joseph Patrick Weggeland, to pay her spousal support. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND A December 2015 judgment of dissolution ended a seven-year marriage between the parties and required respondent to pay spousal support to appellant in the amount of $1,500 per month “until . . . further order of the court.” In a March 2019 filing, respondent asked the trial court to modify his spousal support to appellant. After hearing testimony in July 2019, and considering documentary evidence provided by the parties, the trial court granted respondent’s request to modify spousal support, and ordered him “to pay [appellant] the sum of $500 a month . . . for 12 consecutive months,” followed by payments of $300 a month “for a period of 6 months,” with “[s]upport thereafter terminat[ing].” Explaining its ruling in an eight-page decision that included analysis of criteria set forth in Family Code section 4320,1 the trial court found “a change in circumstances exist[ed]” that justified the modification. Appellant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Appellant is proceeding in pro. per. Her pleadings and papers should thus be liberally construed in order to assure she receives a hearing on the merits. (See People v. Reyes (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 769, 770; People v. Mitchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 312, 315.) A party proceeding in pro. per., however, is entitled “to no greater privilege or advantage than that given to one represented by counsel.” (Deauville v. Hall (1961)

1 Which provides that, in ordering spousal support, the trial court “shall consider all of the following circumstances,” among which are: the “extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage”; the “ability of the supporting party to pay spousal support”; the “obligations and assets, including the separate property, of each party”; the “balance of the hardships to each party”; the “goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable period of time”; and “[a]ny other factors the court determines are just and equitable.” (Fam. Code, § 4320, subds. (a), (c), (e), (k), (l), (n).)