Santa Clara Co. DCSS v. Roldan-Lopez

Filed 8/31/07 Santa Clara Co. DCSS v. Roldan-Lopez CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Appellant Santiago E. Roldan-Lopez appeals from the lower courts June 12, 2006 child support order. He contends the court abused its discretion in failing to deviate from the guideline amount pursuant to the extraordinarily high income exception set forth in subdivision (b)(3) of Family Code section 4057, or, in the alternative, by failing to apply equitable principles to reduce the child support payments. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the child support order.

                                                                                                                                                                I.            Background

Appellant, a resident of Mexico, won $24,000,000 in the California lottery in April 2004. Under the terms of the lottery, appellant will collect the entire prize in 26 annual payments, with his annual payment increasing by $24,000 each year.

Alondra Duran-Roldan was born in June 2005. Beatrice A. Duran-Andrade and appellant are Alondras biological parents. Duran-Andrade and appellant never married and do not live together. Alondra lives with Duran-Andrade in Santa Clara County.

On June 22, 2005, the County of Santa Clara Department of Child Support Services issued a summons and complaint against appellant for child support, seeking a monthly payment of $4,859. Appellants income and expense declaration, filed in December of 2005, indicated that the annual lottery payments were appellants only source of income. At the time, his lottery income amounted to $54,000 per month. Appellant also noted that his mother, brother, sister, and two nephews lived with him, had no monthly income of their own, and paid none of the household expenses. Appellant listed average monthly expenses of $24,550, including $3,000 per month for entertainment, gifts and vacations, $4,000 for charitable contributions, and $5,000 for [e]ating out.

In Duran-Andrades income and expense declaration, she stated she had been unemployed since November 2003 and was receiving public assistance of $359 per month. She listed four dependent children, including Alondra. Duran-Andrades monthly expenses totaled $1,590.

On December 13, 2005, the trial court ordered appellant to pay temporary child support of $4,635 per month for Alondra. The court also ordered him to pay $23,175 in child support arrears for July 2005 through November 2005.

In a memorandum filed on April 28, 2006, appellant requested that the permanent child support order deviate from the guideline amount of $4,935 per month. He argued: (1) Duran-Andrade has three other children who are not his and who he is not obligated to support; (2) he has five dependents of his own; (3) Duran-Andrade tricked him into having a child; and (4) the child support payments benefit Duran-Andrade more than they benefit Alondra. Citing Family Code section 4057, appellant contended specifically that he has an extraordinarily high income and that adoption of the guideline amount would exceed Alondras needs and be unjust under the circumstances of the case. Appellant sought a monthly child support payment of $1,359, which he contended would cover all of Duran-Andrades household expenses. In a supplemental brief, appellant further argued that the guideline amount was simply a disguised form of support for Duran-Andrade and that a trust should be established to ensure that Duran-Andrade does not use monies intended for Alondra.

The trial court held a hearing on May 19, 2006 to consider the ongoing child support order and appellants request for deviation from the guideline amount. Duran-Andrade confirmed that she was still receiving public assistance of $359 per month and that her last job, in 2003, was as a janitor. At the time of the hearing, she was renting a room and received some help from her parents to cover her expenses. Appellant reiterated that he lived with five dependent family members and that his expenditures totaled $24,550 per month.

On June 12, 2006, the trial court ordered child support payments according to the guideline amount of $5,478 per month, beginning on June 1, 2006. The court specified the increase in monthly payments that should occur annually through 2023, when Alondra turns 18, to track the annual increases in appellants lottery income.[1] Appellant also was ordered to pay child support arrears of $59,244 for July 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006.

At the May hearing, the parties had agreed that the full amount of child support owed each year would be deducted annually from appellants annual lottery payment until Alondra reached 18. The Department would set up an account to make the monthly payments to Duran-Andrade and Duran-Andrade would pay for Alondras health care. The court so ordered.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the June 12, 2006 order.

                                                                                                                                                                 II.           Discussion

A child support order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, 282 (Cheriton).) We determine whether the courts factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence and whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion. (In re Marriage of de Guigne (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1360 (de Guigne).) We do not substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court, but determine only if any judge reasonably could have made such an order. (Ibid.)

Statutory guidelines regulate the determination of child support in California. (See Fam. Code, 4050-4076.) [2] The guidelines set forth several important principles relating to child support determinations, including that (1) the interests of the child are the states top priority, (2) a parents principal obligation is to support his or her children according to the parents circumstances and station in life[,] (3) [b]oth parents are mutually responsible for the support of their children[,] (4) [e]ach parent should pay for the support of the children according to his or her ability[,] and (5) children should share in both parents standard of living. ( 4053, subds. (a)-(b), (d)-(f).) The guideline amount of child support, which is calculated by applying a mathematical formula to the relative incomes of the parents, is presumptively correct. (See 4055, 4057, subd. (a); de Guigne, supra,97 Cal.App.4th at p. 1359.)

The presumption that the guideline amount is correct may be rebutted by admissible evidence showing that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the particular case, consistent with the principles set forth in Section 4053[.] ( 4057, subd. (b).) Among the factors that may be considered is one appellant asserts in this case[t]he parent being ordered to pay child support has an extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the formula would exceed the needs of the children. ( 4057, subd. (b)(3).) To deviate from the guideline amount on this basis, the court must find the factor to be applicable by a preponderance of the evidence and state[] in writing or on the record the information required in subdivision (a) of Section 4056[.] ( 4057, subd. (b).)

Appellants initial argument that the trial court failed even to consider the extraordinarily high income exception is without merit. In ordering the guideline amount of child support, the court stated: Although Father will be receiving large sums of money from the Lottery payments, those payments do not result in a child support obligation that would bring this case within the exceptions cited by Father in the high earner cases.

The courts express finding that appellant failed to rebut the presumptively correct guideline amount is well-supported. The mere fact that appellant has a high income, even an extraordinarily high income, is insufficient to compel deviation from the guideline amount pursuant to section 4057. ( 4057, subd. (b) [to rebut presumption, appellant must show that application of guideline amount is unjust or inappropriate in this particular case].) Appellant will receive approximately $16,000,000 from his lottery earnings alone (not including any earnings from investment of the lottery income) in the 18 years of ordered child support payments. Viewed in that light, the child support payments are consistent with insuring that appellant supports Alondra according to his abilities and circumstances and that Alondra enjoys in appellants standard of living. (See  4053, subds. (a), (f); In re Marriage of Wittgrove (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329 (Wittgrove) [[w]hat constitutes reasonable needs for a child varies with the circumstances of the parties [and] the duty to support a child covers more than the mere necessities of life if the parent can afford to pay more].)

Appellant presented no evidence that application of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate or that a lower award would be consistent with the childs best interests. (Wittgrove, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1328, internal quotation marks omitted.) Although it is likely that Duran-Andrade and her other children will benefit from the monthly payments, that unintended consequence is not a sufficient reason to provide appellants daughter less than the amount determined to be presumptively correct. (See, e.g., 4053, subd. (f) [Children should share in the standard of living of both parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.]; In re Marriage of Hubner (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 660, 668 (Hubner) [the trial court abused its discretion in deviating from the guideline amount out of concern that the guideline payment would be a disguised form of spousal support due to the custodial parents relative poverty].) [C]ourts have consistently recognized that where the supporting parent enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds that of the custodial parent, child support must to some degree reflect the more opulent lifestyle even though this may, as a practical matter, produce a benefit for the custodial parent. (Id. at p. 668; see also Wittgrove, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1329 [minor children should share in parents standard of living regardless of whether the amount of support improves the custodial household].) As one court explained in affirming an order for guideline child support, the fact that other members of the custodial family may benefit from the payment of support beyond mere subsistence levels is not a special circumstance, but one that typically comes into play if the noncustodial parent has a substantial income. [Citation.] The fact that [fathers] income is substantial is a fact that tends to establish that he should pay more in child support than the average noncustodial parent, not less. (County of Alameda v. Johnson (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 259, 264.) The trial court in this case thus acted within its discretion in awarding the guideline amount despite the potential benefit to Duran-Andrade and her other children.

We observe that under the circumstances appellant did not fare so badly in the trial court. Appellants monthly income is at least $54,000, his own monthly household expenses total $24,550, and, yet, appellant is only obligated to provide his daughter approximately $5,500 per month.[3] Duran-Andrade, who has full custody of Alondra, is unemployed and raising three other children with public assistance. With the high cost of living in Santa Clara County, we find no support for an argument that $5,647 per month (the 2007 award) is excessive compared to the reasonable amount required to ensure the childs well-being. Considering Duran-Andrades current financial picture, the child support will be needed to meet most, if not all, of Alondras basic needs, including food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education.[4] We are not swayed by appellants repeated suggestion that these child support payments will make Alondra a millionaire. The payments total $1.4 million over 18 years and must support Alondra through her entire childhood.

Appellants remaining arguments regarding Duran-Andrades unclean hands and the injustice of paying approximately one-tenth of his income to support an unwanted and/or unplanned child do not deserve further comment. Suffice it to say, the trial court acted well within its discretion in setting the child support amount based on the best interests of the child and the statutory guidelines.

                                                                                                                                                              III.         Disposition

The order is affirmed.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

______________________________

Duffy, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.

[1] The trial court attached a letter from the California Lottery detailing appellants expected annual payments through 2023 and the dissomaster print-outs showing the guideline child support calculations for each year adjusted to reflect the increased income.

[2] All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise noted.

[3] This is approximately the amount that appellant estimates he spends on eating out each month.

[4] The trial court determined that Duran-Andrade should pay for Alondras health insurance with the child support payments and that she should cover any excess healthcare costs.