Tsatryan v. Tsatryan (In re Marriage of Tsatryan)
| Decision Date | 24 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | B293433 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of ARTHUR and POLINA TSATRYAN. ARTHUR TSATRYAN, Appellant, v. POLINA TSATRYAN et al., Respondents. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD512645)
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen M. Lowry, Commissioner, and Gregory J. Weingart, Judge. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Arthur Tsatryan, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Linda M. Gonzalez and Ricardo Enriquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department.
No appearance for Respondent Polina Tsatryan.
____________________
This is the 11th appeal by Arthur Tsatryan1 in this marital dissolution action. On May 21, 2015 the family court entered a judgment of dissolution of Arthur and Polina's marriage. Among the issues resolved by the judgment were custody, visitation, and support of their son Alexander. We affirmed the judgment. (In re Marriage of Tsatryan (Feb. 13, 2018, B265467) [nonpub. opn.].)
Arthur now appeals from a September 7, 2018 postjudgment order denying a motion filed by the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department (Department) to modify Arthur's child support obligation (modification motion). Arthur contends he was entitled to a reduction of his support obligation because Polina's income is greater than the amount used to calculate prior support orders, and Arthur now has no income and is disabled. Arthur also contends he was denied a fair hearing because the family court denied the modification motion without ordering Polina to produce her tax returns and allowing Arthur to file a supplemental brief. We affirm the September 7, 2018 order.
Arthur has also appealed from a September 5, 2018 family court order denying Arthur's request for a change in child custody, visitation, child support, and for other relief, but he subsequently abandoned his challenge to this order. We dismiss Arthur's appeal as to the September 5, 2018 order.
Arthur and Polina were married on August 5, 1987. They separated on August 3, 2009, and Arthur filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on September 23, 2009. At the time Arthur filed the petition for dissolution, Alexander was a minor.3 (In re Marriage of Tsatryan, supra, B265467.)
After a three-day trial on custody issues and a two-day trial on property division and child support, on May 21, 2015 the family court4 entered a judgment of dissolution (judgment) awarding Polina sole legal and physical custody of Alexander with Arthur to have visitation on the first and third weekends of each month and the parties to divide holidays and school breaks.The court ordered Arthur to pay $507 per month in child support based on a Dissomaster5 guideline and the court's findings Polina had an annual income of $75,000 and Arthur had a monthly income of $4,500 ($54,000 annually). Arthur appealed the judgment, and we affirmed. (In re Marriage of Tsatryan, supra, B265467.)
On December 19, 2016 Arthur filed a request to modify child custody, visitation, and child support.6 At the February 7, 2017 hearing,7 Arthur argued his child support obligation should be reduced because Polina's annual income had increased from $75,000 to $130,000, but he did not provide evidentiary support for this assertion, and Polina's income and expense declaration filed on January 9, 2017 stated her average monthly gross pay was $6,200 ($74,400 annually). On March 15, 2017 the familycourt issued a written ruling denying Arthur's request to modify the custody and child support orders.8
On March 16, 2017 Arthur filed another request to modify child support asserting that in setting child support under the judgment, the family court erroneously calculated Arthur's income at an amount above his actual income and Polina's income at an amount lower than her actual income. Arthur asserted Polina earned about $130,000 per year, and he filed printouts from the Internet Web site Transparent California stating that in 2015 Polina, who was employed by the County of Los Angeles as a software application developer, had "regular pay" of $84,370.09, "total pay" of $89,054.28, and "total pay and benefits" of $122,759.25. The Department's responsive declaration requested that "all orders to remain in full force and effect, or increase, if appropriate, pursuant to state guidelines." The Department argued Arthur did not submit his tax returns with his request; Arthur failed to demonstrate any changed circumstances; and the request improperly sought to modify the judgment retroactively. Arthur filed a declaration in response attaching income tax returns from 2007 through 2016 and noting his annual income had not exceeded $15,000 during that period.9 He also stated the divorce proceedings had adversely impacted his health. He submitted medical records showing he was diagnosed in October 2014 with generalized anxiety disorder andmajor depression, recurrent, and placed off work from October 22 to November 12, 2014. On March 29, 2017 Arthur visited his physician to review his diagnosis for depression and anxiety.
On May 24, 2017 Polina filed an income and expense declaration reporting $7,800 in monthly income and estimating Arthur's gross monthly income at $4,500.
After a hearing, the family court10 on June 20, 2017 entered an order increasing Arthur's child support obligation from $507 to $636 per month. The court found Arthur's income of $4,500 per month had not changed and Polina's income had increased, but Arthur's custodial timeshare had decreased to 1 percent. The court calculated guideline support based on Polina's monthly income of $9,908 ($118,896 annually), Arthur's monthly income of $4,500, and Arthur's 1 percent timeshare with Alexander.
On January 18, 2018 the Department filed a motion to modify child support requesting Arthur's child support obligation "be modified to [z]ero" because Arthur had received a "needs-based cash grant." No party appeared at the hearing noticed for March 9, 2018, and the family court took the motion off calendar.
On May 31, 2018 the Department filed another motion to modify child support. Unlike the prior motion to reduce child support to zero, the notice of motion did not request a specific support amount, instead stating "the amount the court will order will be based upon information presented at the hearing." The Department's supporting declaration stated, "There has been a change in the person paying support's and/or person receivingsupport's earnings or other income." The Department attached Polina's income and expense declaration dated March 30, 2018, in which Polina stated her average monthly income was $7,400 and her income in the prior month was $7,980. Polina estimated Arthur's gross monthly income was $4,500. The Department also served Arthur with a notice to produce pay stubs for the last 12 months, the last two years of federal and state income tax returns, an income and expense declaration, and "documentation of any hardship or other deductions being requested by [Arthur]."
On June 19, 2018 Arthur filed a motion to continue the hearing because Arthur had plans to visit his family in Russia for several weeks. Arthur stated in his declaration that his brother had purchased the airline ticket for him because Arthur suffered from generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder "d[u]e to [the] ordeal he is going through in the divorce with Polina . . . , child alienation and not be[ing] able to see his child for more than 3 years." Arthur added that his trips to Russia helped him "[t]o get away from [the] hostile environment [and] help me to cope with the stress and depression."11 Arthur attached medical records showing he visited his physician on May 10 and June 13, 2018 concerning his prior diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and recurrent major depressive disorder. The family court granted Arthur's motion andcontinued the hearing on the modification motion until August 23, 2018. On July 2, 2018 Arthur filed an income and expense declaration stating he had monthly income of zero.12 Arthur did not produce pay stubs, recent tax returns, or documentation describing his medical condition or asserted disability.
Arthur, Polina, and the Department appeared at the August 23, 2018 hearing before Commissioner Lowry. Arthur and Polina were self-represented. At the outset, staff counsel for the Department advised the family court Arthur "is [a] recipient of general relief since November of 2017, and [Polina] is opposed to a zero child support order as she feels he should be working and contributing for the welfare of the child."
When the court inquired whether Arthur's income had changed since the 2017 finding his monthly income was $4,500, Arthur responded the family court erred during trial because it did not consider his income tax returns and instead based its finding on mortgage payments Arthur made on two homes. Arthur testified he "was borrowing money from [his] friends and family" to pay the mortgages so as "not to [lose the] investment." He was "now not making money at all" because he "lost [his] business and cannot work." Prior to his separation from Polina, Arthur owned a construction business, but his health deteriorated, he was unable to continue...
To continue reading
Request your trial