K.B. v. J.E. CA4/1

Filed 7/14/22 K.B. v. J.E. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

K.B., D079057

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20DF000822C) v.

J.E.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Adam Wertheimer, Commissioner. Affirmed. K.B., in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION Appellant K.B., proceeding in propria persona, appeals from an order of the trial court entered on February 2, 2021, in a family support matter. Respondent J.E. has not made an appearance in this court. The trial court’s order from which K.B. appeals states in relevant part:

“Father is entitled to an additional credit of $69.23 for the month of Dec. 2019. The court reinstates the order that the remaining balance of spousal support will be paid interest free so long as the father pays $250 per month starting 2/1/2021.

“[¶] . . . [¶]

“Respondent owes petitioner the following amounts:

“Spousal Support arrears of $14,000.00 principal, $1281.41 interest through 12/31/20, and

“Child Support Arrears of $305.81 princ, $622.31 interest thru 12/31/20.”1

K.B. argues that the trial court erred in not finding that J.E. failed to pay $400 a month “ ‘catch up’ payments” that were to be paid to her for a 15- month period, between January 2020 and March 2021, and that the court therefore erred in failing to order that the $400 per month, plus 10 percent interest on that amount for the period the amount remained unpaid, was owed to her. We begin by setting forth certain basic standards that are applicable to all appeals. “ ‘[A] judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown. [Citation.] “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” [Citation.] . . . “ ‘A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is