Marriage of Talebi and Sarvari CA4/3

Filed 3/3/22 Marriage of Talebi and Sarvari CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of FARHAD TALEBI and AREZOO SARVARI.

FARHAD TALEBI, G059168 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16D002615) v. OPINION AREZOO SARVARI,

Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nathan T. Vu, Judge. Affirmed. Arezoo Savari, in pro. per.; and Holstrom, Block & Parke and Ronald B. Funk for Appellant. The Appellate Law Firm and Berangere Allen-Blaine for Respondent.

Appellant Arezoo Sarvari appeals from a judgment dissolving her marriage to Respondent Farhad Talebi, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to consider her evidence on the parties’ date of separation, and by setting the amount of spousal support to zero. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by relying on appellant’s verified response to fix the parties’ date of separation, or by setting the amount of appellant’s spousal support at zero based on findings that appellant failed to testify credibly about her current earning capacity and income. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and respondent were married on July 1, 1995. In 2016, respondent filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, which specified January 1, 2015, as the date of separation. Appellant’s response, verified under penalty of perjury, agreed with respondent’s petition that the date of separation was January 1, 2015. This information is gleaned from the briefs of the parties, the reporter’s transcript, and the trial court’s judgment of dissolution, as neither the response nor the petition themselves are included in the record. During the pendency of the case, respondent sought discovery from appellant regarding various aspects of her finances, apparently including documents relating to a mortgage obtained by appellant for her home in Canada. Appellant failed to respond sufficiently to these requests, despite twice being ordered to do so, was twice 1 sanctioned, and ultimately did not produce documents relating to this mortgage. On the first day of trial, appellant (who at that point was self-represented) took the position that the date of separation was September 2016, not January 1, 2015. The trial court asked appellant whether she had filed a document taking that position