Marriage of James-Hernando and Hernando
Filed 6/23/06 Marriage of James-Hernando and Hernando CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re Marriage of JULIA LILLIAN JAMES-HERNANDO and CARLOS HERNANDO. JULIA LILLIAN JAMES-HERNANDO, Appellant, v. CARLOS HERNANDO, Respondent. | G036419 (Super. Ct. No. 98D010057) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Josephine Staton Tucker, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Marc E. Mitzner and Marc E. Mitzner for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Appellant Julia Lillian James-Hernando (Julia) appeals from the judgment of dissolution terminating her marriage to Carlos Hernando (Carlos). She challenges the court's rulings regarding back child support, child custody, reimbursement of community property expenditures, and attorney fees. We reject her contentions, and affirm.
FACTS
Both parties testified at the hearing on Julia's petition for dissolution. The court entered a judgment of dissolution, which awarded the parties joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children. It ordered the parties to maintain the existing custody schedule. It also ordered Carlos to pay child support, but denied Julia's request for back child support. It further ordered Carlos to recalculate the profits from community rental property, finding he kept inadequate records concerning rental expenses and improperly spent rental income on personal matters. To the extent Julia had not received one-half of the actual rental profits, she was awarded that amount. Finally, it ordered each party to bear his or her own attorney fees and costs.
DISCUSSION
Julia makes four challenges to the judgment.[1] None have merit.
First, Julia contends the court erred by failing to award back child support to her. The parties offered conflicting testimony as to whether Carlos had paid all the previously ordered child support. Julia testified Carlos paid none of it; Carlos testified he paid all of it. The court concluded, â€
