Marriage of Nadasdy

Filed 4/4/06 Marriage of Nadasdy CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the MARRIAGE OF MARICA AND H028119

STEPHEN NADASDY.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT

OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Respondent, (Santa Clara County

Superior Court

v. No. 101DA087857)

STEPHEN ATTILA NADASDY,

Appellant.

_____________________________________/

In this case, as in his prior appeal (July 20, 2005, H027515)[nonpub. opn.], defendant Stephen Attila Nadasdy (Stephen) challenges orders by the superior court in 2004 regarding his failure to pay child support on the ground that the original 2002 child support order was void. As this court did in his prior appeal, we reject his contention and affirm the orders.

The core of this case and of Stephen's prior appeal is Stephen's failure to support his daughter. In Stephen's previous appeal, he maintained that the superior court had erred in denying his February 2004 motion to set aside a September 2001 Santa Clara County registration of an Orange County order and to set aside a January 2002 Santa Clara County child support order. He claimed that the September 2001 registration was invalid due to improper service of notice and the January 2002 order was void due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This court held that Stephen was not prejudiced by any notice problem with regard to the September 2001 registration of the Orange County order because the Orange County order lacked any child support provisions. With regard to the January 2002 Santa Clara County child support order, this court held that the Santa Clara County Superior Court had not lacked subject matter jurisdiction simply because the motion from which that order arose was labelled as one for modification of child support rather than for the initial setting of child support. This court also concluded that Stephen's appeal from the Orange County child custody order had no impact on the Santa Clara Superior Court's jurisdiction over child support.

In June 2004, after the initiation of the prior appeal, Stephen sought judicial review of the Department of Motor Vehicles' denial of a driver's license due to his failure to pay child support. Stephen's sole contention was that the license denial was erroneous because the January 2002 child support order was void due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2004, the court ordered that Stephen's license be conditionally released to him upon payment of one month's child support but revoked if he thereafter failed to make timely payments. In August 2004, Stephen moved for reconsideration of that order, but he failed to state any new facts or law in his motion. His reconsideration motion was denied.

Stephen was thereafter found guilty of multiple counts of contempt for repeatedly failing to make child support payments, and he was sentenced to 40 days in jail.[1] Stephen filed a notice of appeal in November 2004 that challenged the denial of his June 2004 motion and the denial of his August 2004 reconsideration motion. Although his notice of appeal does not mention the contempt order, Stephen asks us to review it also. He attacks the contempt order on the same ground that he attacks the denial of his motions.

Stephen claims that the January 2002 child support order is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This court resolved that issue against Stephen in his prior appeal. Nothing has changed. The Santa Clara County Superior Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of child support because the child lived in Santa Clara County. The propriety of the attempted registration of the Orange County order had no impact on the Santa Clara County court's subject matter jurisdiction. We reject Stephen's repetition of the arguments that this court rejected in his prior appeal.

The court's orders are affirmed.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________

Elia, Acting P.J.

_____________________________

McAdams, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Apartment Manager Lawyers.

[1] Stephen's â€