Marriage of Bergman CA4/1

Filed 3/25/24 Marriage of Bergman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DIVISIN ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of ROBERT and CYNTHIA BERGMAN. D083079 ROBERT W. BERGMAN, Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. RID1402325) CYNTHIA C. BERGMAN, Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John W. Vineyard, Judge. Affirmed. The Appellate Law Firm, Aaron Myers, and Mark Kuntze for Appellant. Law Offices of Brian C. Unitt, Brian C. Unitt, and Thomas D. Allert, for Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert W. Bergman appeals a postjudgment order granting Cynthia C. Bergman’s request to modify spousal support. Robert contends the trial court erred in retroactively ordering an increase in spousal support to a date prior

to Cynthia’s request for modification. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion and affirm. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854.) I. Robert and Cynthia were married for over 20 years before their separation in 2014. A stipulated judgment of dissolution was entered in 2016 that required Robert to pay $1,000 a month in spousal support. The judgment incorporated an addendum requiring each of them “to notify the other within 10 calendar days of any change in employment or income.” (Boldface omitted.) Should either fail to provide notice, “the court reserve[d] jurisdiction to modify any support obligation retroactively to the date the notice should have been given.” In 2021, Robert requested an order seeking a reduction in spousal support, and Cynthia requested an increase in spousal support. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Robert’s request, finding he did not meet his burden of proving a material change of circumstances justifying a reduction. But the court found Cynthia did meet her burden and ordered Robert to pay an additional $1,000 per month in support. The court also found Robert failed to notify Cynthia of changes to his employment, including “several significant [pay] raises.” Consequently, the court ordered the modification of spousal support retroactive to January 1, 2017, the date Robert’s reporting obligation began. II. Robert does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s modification order. Although Robert acknowledges he did not appeal the stipulated judgment of dissolution, he contends he should be permitted to collaterally attack the retroactivity condition by challenging the