Patrick C. Huglin and Patricia L. Huglin
Case No: 17FL01499
Hearing Date: Tue May 14, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support

Petitioner’s Req. for Order: Modification Spousal Support

Attorneys: Petitioner (Patrick”) in pro per; Vanessa Kirker Wright for Respondent (“Patricia”)

Ruling: The request for modification is DENIED.

Background:

Patrick seeks modification of spousal support; claims his income has changed; the judgment in this case was filed 2/25/2019; the MSA attached to the Judgment was signed by Patrick on 12/29/18; on 3/21/2019 Patrick filed his RFO for modification: comprises 27 pages and the Court has read it all.

Analysis:

Patrick’s request for modification fails because he has not and cannot meet his burden to establish an affirmative showing of a change in circumstances since the last order. A spousal support order is modifiable only upon a material change of circumstances since the last order. (In re Marriage of McCann (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 978, 982-983.) Here, Patrick seeks nothing more than a request for reconsideration of circumstances which have not changed since the previous order. That does not meet the threshold requirement; it is nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on a final judgment. (In re Marriage of Khera and Sameer, 206 Cal. App. 4th at 1477). Patrick’s voluntary reduction to part-time work in October, 2018, and his shoulder surgery in November, 2018, occurred months before he signed the stipulated judgment and it was entered. Thus, neither of those circumstances, even if they were supported by admissible evidence of a reduction in his income, support a finding that circumstances have changed since the last order. Most of Patrick’s complaints about the judgment are in the form of an impermissible request for reconsideration of a judgment to which he agreed. Patrick cannot litigate a judgment to which he agreed by way of a request for modification.

Additionally, whenever the Court is asked to consider a modification of spousal support request, the local rules require that the applicant serve 12 months of bank statements, the past two years federal taxes and an offer to review business records. (Santa Barbara County Local Rule 1419.) The language is mandatory, not permissive, because it is not possible to analyze a modification request without the requisite financial information. Where a party fails to comply with the local rule, the Court may dismiss the action or proceeding. (Santa Barbara County Local Rule 102).

Patrick ignored the Local Rule; he did not serve a single document that is required by that rule. Because he violated the local rules, and the evidence to support his request is solely within Patrick’s possession, the Court must reject Patrick’s request for modification.