Case Number: SD035627 Hearing Date: August 08, 2019 Dept: 311

Eitan Pilipski v. M. Joy Jacobs, Case No. SD 035 627

Tentative Ruling on Objections to Tentative Decision and Statement of Decision

Petitioner’s Objection #1:
Petitioner objects to the Court’s use of 50/50 for the time share when calculating child support based on Respondent’s designated vacation dates, the children’s summer camp schedules, and the date of commencement of school. None of this evidence was presented at trial. This is not a proper objection. Objections to a statement of decision are to bring to the court’s attention controverted issues not addressed or inconsistencies in the ruling or to make proposals not covered in the ruling. C.R.C. Rule 3.1590(c). See also Heaps v. Heaps (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 286 (objections are to bring to court’s attention inconsistencies in the ruling rather than to reargue the merits).

Petitioner’s Objection #2:
Petitioner objects to the Court’s decision that only Petitioner’s income be subject to an Ostler/Smith order and that it be calculated quarterly. Petitioner requests that the Ostler/Smith be 2-way, that the parties exchange financial documents quarterly, but that the Ostler/Smith calculation be done only annually. This is not a proper objection. Id.

Respondent’s Objection:

Respondent objects to the Court’s decision not to order an Ostler/Smith payment in addition to the $4000/mo. order for spousal support. Respondent provides extensive calculations to show that the $4000/mo. would not place her at the marital standard of living and that the addition of an Ostler/Smith order would. Respondent’s objection contends that the Court’s decision was based on erroneous calculations and appears to rely on a Profit & Loss Statement that was not presented at the time of trial.

The Court has reviewed its calculations in connection with its spousal support decision, based on evidence that was presented at trial, and finds no inconsistencies or errors. C.R.C. Rule 3.1590(c). In contrast, the calculations proffered by Respondent as an “objection” involve double counting and evidence not presented at trial. In its substance, Respondent’s objection is simply an argument against the merits of the Court’s ruling. The fact that Respondent disagrees with the ruling is not a basis to change it. Heaps v. Heaps (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 286. Respondent’s Objection is overruled.

To the extent that Respondent’s statement on the Snapchat offer is an objection, it is overruled. The Court set forth the factual and legal basis for its decision, including the issue of the Snapchat offer. Stating simply that “Respondent would like to set the record straight” is an improper attempt to change the decision and it is rejected by the Court.

Tentative Ruling:
After consideration, the Court finds that the Tentative Decision and Statement of Decision sets forth sufficient facts to support the Court’s findings and rulings, that the correct legal analysis was applied, and that the facts that the parties claim the Court failed to consider were not established by counsel at the time of trial. The Court overrules the objections of both parties and the Tentative Decision and Statement of Decision is now final within the meaning of Rule 3.1590(c) of the California Rules of Court.