Marriage of Foscalina CA3

Filed 2/25/13 Marriage of Foscalina CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

In re the Marriage of JOEL and BRIDGETT C069820 FOSCALINA.

JOEL FOSCALINA, (Super. Ct. No. FL63924)

Appellant,

v.

BRIDGETT FOSCALINA,

Respondent.

Joel Foscalina, husband, appeals from a trial court judgment dividing community property, ordering husband to pay to Bridgett Foscalina, wife, $2,268 in order to equalize the division of community property, and reserving jurisdiction over the issues of support and marital status. Husband‟s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to continue the trial. We affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND In August 2010 husband filed a petition to dissolve the parties‟ 23-year marriage. He subsequently filed a motion seeking spousal support. In support of his motion, husband said he was an out-of-work carpenter and his unemployment insurance benefits were insufficient to cover his “basic” living expenses. Wife opposed husband‟s motion, noting that she too was unemployed and struggling to cover her own expenses. Husband filed a second motion for spousal support in June 2011. Husband, now representing himself, noted that his previous motion had been withdrawn by former counsel without his knowledge or consent. Husband said he needed spousal support because he continued to be unemployed and was now “without a home.” On July 11, 2011, husband caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued, ordering wife to appear at trial on August 24, 2011, and produce documents related to a 2004 Ford Explorer and an “accident in 2010.” On August 5, 2011, husband caused a second subpoena duces tecum to be issued, directing the “Law office of Michael Darlington” (wife‟s counsel) to appear at trial on August 24, 2011, and produce documents showing wife‟s “2011 Income Declaration, January 2011 through July 31, 2011 and all Unemployment Income for 2011.” On August 17, 2011, husband filed his list of exhibits and a “hearing brief” related to the trial scheduled for August 24, 2011. On August 24, 2011, the parties appeared for a two-hour trial “on all issues.” On the day of trial, wife filed her trial brief with numerous exhibits attached. Husband immediately moved for a continuance, arguing he needed time to review wife‟s trial brief and the exhibits. Wife indicated there was no new information in the trial brief except her request that husband pay support for their incapacitated adult child. The trial court invited husband to review the trial brief and the attachments; if any of the attachments were a “surprise[]” to husband, he was directed to tell the court why that surprise warranted a