Marriage of Patel
Filed 4/17/09 Marriage of Patel CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re the Marriage of AMISHA M. AND MUKESHCHANDRA M. PATEL. | |
AMISHA M. PATEL, Respondent, v. MUKESHCHANDRA M. PATEL, Appellant; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Movant and Appellant. | E043836 (Super.Ct.No. VFLVS033516) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 1, 2009, be modified as follows:
The last paragraph on page 14 beginning with the words Here, both Mukeshchandras expert witness, Marvin Reiter, . . . and ending on page 15 with the words the private investigator documented . . . that Mukeshchandra was continuing to work 12-hour days is stricken, and the following paragraphs are inserted in lieu thereof:
Here, both Mukeshchandras expert witness, Marvin Reiter, and the court-appointed expert, McCallum, testified that a cardiologist with 20 years experience typically works substantially more than 40 hours per week. McCallum testified he did not know of any database that would reliably tell you how many hours a 20-year cardiologist would work[.]
Moreover, with respect to child support, the family law court must consider all income from whatever source derived, . . . (Fam. Code, 4058, subd. (a).) In County of Placer v. Andrade (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1393, the court reversed a support order because the family law court had improperly excluded overtime actually being worked. (Id. at pp. 1396-1397.) The court stated that the trial court could disregard past actual earnings only if it determined the spouse was unlikely to receive them in the future, such as because of changed employment conditions, but that such a change should be shown by admissible evidence. (Id. at p. 1397.)
We note that in the event Mukeshchandras actual work hours decrease, he is not foreclosed from presenting the court with credible evidence to establish that fact and to request modification of support payments accordingly. (County of Placer v. Andrade, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.) Here, however, Mukeshchandra was caught in his blatant lies to the court. Although he claimed, under penalty of perjury, to have been working only a few hours per week, the private investigator documented through video surveillance that Mukeshchandra was continuing to work 12-hour days.
Except for the above modification, the opinion remains unchanged. The modification does not affect a change in the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KING
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
