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. ![]() 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. The history of this proceeding is well known to the parties and this court. ![]() 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.115 California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not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 Comments
Leave a Reply. |