Marriage of Heyman CA2/8

Filed 7/19/22 Marriage of Heyman CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re the Marriage of MELISSA B309925 and MATTHEW HEYMAN. ______________________________ Los Angeles County MELISSA BROOKE HEYMAN, Super. Ct. No. BD620152

Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW DAVID HEYMAN,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph M. Lipner, Judge. Reversed.

The Law Firm of Fox and Fox and Frank O. Fox for Appellant.

Brot Gross Fishbein and Mark Gross for Respondent. ____________________

Matthew David Heyman is the father. The trial court granted the father’s request to reduce his child support payments. The mother, Melissa Brooke Heyman, correctly identifies this as error under In re Marriage of Usher (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 347 (Usher). The reduction in the father’s income did not materially affect his ability to provide for his child and did not merit a reduction of his child support obligation. The law requires a showing of changed circumstances before a court can consider how much to change child support payments. Because the father’s case founders on this initial barrier, we do not reach the secondary issue of whether adopting the guideline child support amount was appropriate. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Cohen (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1023 [“We dare say no family lawyer is unaware of the rule requiring a change of circumstances before a support order may be modified.”].) The mother and the father married in 2010 and had a daughter in 2013. The marriage ended in March 2016 with a stipulated divorce judgment. The father agreed to pay monthly child support of $5,000 and various “add-on” expenses for his child, including private school tuition and reasonable extracurricular activities. He also agreed to pay monthly spousal support of $8,333 for five years. The father’s counsel told the trial court the agreed child support was above the then-guideline amount. The father’s income and expense declaration from February 2016—less than a month before the judgment—shows the father had a degree of wealth: about $8.8 million in assets, including about $2.2 million in cash and various deposit accounts and about