Aromapsihologiya i v sakov trial#
On December 3, 2013, the trial court filed its order denying the motion to set aside the order terminating spousal support. On October 17, 2013, appellant filed a motion to set aside the Septemorder on the ground that the order was in excess of jurisdiction. In addition to terminating support, the order reflects appellant was ordered to repay any sums of spousal support paid by respondent from Januthrough the date of the hearing. On September 23, 2013, the trial court filed its findings and order after hearing. The court ordered spousal support terminated as of January 1, 2011. On September 9, 2013, the trial court denied the request to set aside the Jorder. She argued there was no legal basis upon which to set the OctoOSC for trial. On July 8, 2013, appellant filed a request to set aside the Jorder. On June 28, 2013, the trial court ordered a hearing on the Octomotion.
On April 25, 2013, the trial court filed its order granting the request to set a status conference. On April 18, 2013, respondent filed a status conference statement seeking a conference to set another hearing on his Octomotion to terminate spousal support. On March 26, 2013, the trial court granted appellant's motion to vacate the orders made at the Januhearing on the ground that she had been given invalid notice. On February 14, 2013, appellant filed a motion vacate the order entered on January 25, 2013. On February 7, 2013, appellant filed an application for reissuance of her motion to vacate and to set the hearing date for no later than March 22, 2013. On January 25, 2013, the trial court filed its order after the hearing held on January 14, 2013, ordering the termination of spousal support. On January 22, 2013, appellant filed a motion to vacate the Januorder. The order reflects the matter was continued to Janufor further hearing 'on motion filed to terminate or modify spousal support.' On January 14, 2013, a hearing was held on respondent's request.Īppellant did not appear at the hearing. On January 9, 2013, the trial court filed its order after hearing. His attorney stated that he did not file a motion because 'with that order set aside we are now back to where my client's motion to modify or terminate spousal support is now to be heard.' The court also noted that respondent had not explicitly requested modification or termination of support. The trial court denied the request for the stay. On January 7, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on respondent's request. On December 17, 2012, respondent filed a request for a temporary order staying his spousal support obligation pending hearing. ' Respondent did not appeal from this order. The court concluded the decision to terminate spousal support had been made in reliance 'on false information provided by. Among its findings, the court observed respondent and his attorney had 'substantially misstate' the length of time he had paid spousal support to appellant. On October 31, 2012, the trial court filed its order after hearing granting appellant's request to set aside the order terminating spousal support. She also asserted that respondent or his attorney committed perjury in advising the court that he had continuously paid spousal support.
Specifically, she claimed she had not been given notice that the trial court would be making an order addressing the length of the parties' marriage. As grounds for her request, she alleged fraud, perjury, and lack of notice.
Aromapsihologiya i v sakov code#
On December 8, 2011, appellant filed an application to set aside the support order under Family Code section 3691.
On May 31, 2011, the trial court filed its order after hearing in which it ordered spousal support terminated as of December 31, 2010. The matter was heard on December 9, 2010. On December 7, 2010, appellant filed a responsive declaration opposing the OSC.
On October 26, 2010, respondent filed an order to show cause (OSC) to terminate spousal support. 1 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The history of this proceeding is well known to the parties and this court. INTRODUCTION In yet another appeal arising from this exceptionally litigious family law proceeding, appellant Ester Adut appeals from the trial court's order terminating respondent Joshua Sakov's obligation to pay spousal support. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.115 DONDERO, J. 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).
0 kommentar(er)
