Greenberg v. Daunch CA3

Filed 11/8/22 Greenberg v. Daunch CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Nevada) ----

SHAWN LAKSMI GREENBERG, C090051

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FL15011924)

v.

DAVID DAUNCH,

Defendant and Appellant;

SIERRA NEVADA REGIONAL DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Intervener and Respondent.

Appellant David Daunch appeals in propria persona from the trial court’s April 2019 child support order and May 2019 order denying relief from said order. Daunch claims the trial court erred by, inter alia: (a) disregarding relevant statutes when calculating the amount of child support, (b) denying Daunch’s motion for relief from the child support order, (c) failing to provide Daunch “neutral . . . guidance,” and (d)

1

“prohibiting [Daunch] from completely answering” questions the trial court posed to him at the hearing on the motion for relief. We affirm, concluding the first claim is forfeited on appeal because Daunch has not demonstrated he raised it properly in the trial court, and the remaining claims lack merit. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In January 2019, Sierra Nevada Regional Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) filed in the trial court a motion, on Daunch’s behalf, to modify a prior order that required Daunch to pay $430 monthly to Shawn Greenberg in support for their minor child. DCSS explained that Daunch “request[ed] modification due to changes in employment and ability to work for health reasons.” In an income and expense declaration filed in January 2019 under penalty of perjury, Daunch represented: (a) he had been unemployed “since [his] accident” a year earlier, (b) “public assistance,” in the amount of $175 per month, was the only source of his monthly income in the last year, and (c) he had been using credit cards and loans to pay his expenses. A hearing began on March 14, 2019. The trial court and the parties addressed some procedural matters at the beginning of the hearing. “First off,” the trial court said, “Mr. Daunch, you had filed a Request for Order . . . to compel Ms. Greenberg’s deposition and Request for Production of Documents. . . . Did it resolve?” “It’s not resolved,” Daunch replied, “but . . . the documents . . . I have in essence support some of my conclusions and the time, effort and hassle is not worth it.” “All right,” the trial court responded, “[t]hen that Request for Order is dropped.” The next procedural matter was Daunch’s motion to quash a subpoena served on a cabinetry business that Daunch occasionally did work for. The trial court addressed Daunch: “[Y]ou have filed on March 12th, a Motion to Quash the . . . subpoena . . . is that correct?” “Yes, Your Honor,” Daunch answered.