Marriage of Barapour and Hatami

Filed 10/11/06 Marriage of Barapour and Hatami 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

The instant appeals are the next in a growing number of appeals brought by appellant Iman Hatami in the course of his dissolution action. In this appeal, appellant challenges multiple orders made by the trial court in 2005 regarding ongoing childcare and support issues. Mr. Hatami claims that the trial court abused its discretion in a number of ways. The respondent, Farideh Bararpour has not filed a response brief. Finding that Mr. Hatami has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion, we affirm the order.

Factual and Procedural Background

The judgment of dissolution in this action provided that ongoing child support be paid by Mr. Hatami to Ms. Bararpour.[1] Over the course of the dissolution action, Mr. Hatami has made repeated attempts to modify the terms of support and child custody.[2] In December 2004, Mr. Hatami filed yet another round of motions to modify support, custody, visitation and for injunctive relief. On January 4, 2005, the trial court denied the motion to modify support for lack of change in circumstances. The court reserved the issue of support modification if Mr. Hatami were able to support his claims with documentation. In February, the court ordered the parties to mediation regarding the custody and visitation issues. Finally, on April 15, 2005, the court took a stipulation and filed an order resolving the child custody and visitation issues raised in the December 2004 motion.

Mr. Hatami filed a further motion to modify support which proceeded to hearing on April 21, 2005. On June 14, 2005, the trial court filed an order after hearing setting spousal support at zero and memorializing various agreements of the parties including, among other things, an agreement to waive all support arrears claims absent substantial change of circumstances, and to waive their right to appeal and to trial de novo. Also on April 21, 2005, Mr. Hatami sought to modify the April 15, 2005 stipulation and order regarding custody and visitation. The trial court filed an order modifying some of the terms of the stipulation and order on July 12, 2005.

Despite the waiver of trial de novo agreed to by the parties in April, on June 30, 2005, Mr. Hatami filed a motion for new trial regarding all issues raised by the April 15, 2005 and April 21, 2005 motions. That motion was denied by order after a contested hearing on August 24, 2005. While the motion for new trial was pending, Mr. Hatami filed two additional motions challenging the April 15, 2005, June 14, 2005, and July 12, 2005 orders: a motion to set aside or vacate judgment and a motion to rescind oral agreement. These motions were heard on October 4, 2005, at a much contested hearing and were both denied.

Throughout the above proceedings, the court admonished Mr. Hatami multiple times that he was risking being declared a vexatious litigant if he did not stop filing repetitive motions which were not supported by either law or fact. At the hearing on October 3, 2005, the court suggested that Ms. Bararpour could file a motion to have Mr. Hatami designated a vexatious litigant. On October 11, 2005, Ms. Bararpour’s motion to have Mr. Hatami declared a vexatious litigant came on for hearing but was continued.

Mr. Hatami has filed two appeals from this latest flurry of motions which he originally filed in December 2004. The first notice of appeal, filed on August 31, 2005, challenges the orders dated January 4, 2005, April 15, 2005, June 14, 2005, July 12, 2005 and August, 24, 2005. The second notice of appeal, filed October 13, 2005, challenges the October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005 orders. On January 13, 2006, this court dismissed the appeal from the order dated 1/4/05 as untimely pursuant to rules 2 and 3 of the California Rules of Court. Discussion

On appeal, Mr. Hatami claims that the trial court abused its discretion in making these order. However, in his brief, Mr. Hatami fails to cite to that portion of the record which would support his contentions. An appellant must affirmatively show error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “We are not required to search the record to ascertain whether it contains support for [plaintiff’s] contentions. [Citation.]” (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545.) Where no record references are made we may treat a point as waived and pass it without consideration. (Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 229.)

Nor does Mr. Hatami cite any case authority to support his arguments. On appeal, the appellant also has the obligation to direct the court to authority that supports the arguments in support of his position. If none is furnished, the court may treat the point as waived and pass it without consideration. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.)

We appreciate the effort involved in Mr. Hatami representing himself in these proceedings. But self-representation does not exempt a litigant from the requirements of the law. “A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney [citation] ‘but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.’ [Citations.]” (Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust etc. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209.) A self-representing party is due the same consideration as any other party from trial and appellate courts, but no greater. (Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160; Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056.) Courts are not obliged to act as counsel for the self-representing party, though we should guard against inadvertence causing a miscarriage of justice. (Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust etc. Bank, supra, 137 Cal.App.2d at pp. 209-211; Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1008; Harding v. Collazo, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 1055.) Having failed to provide this court with either citations to the record or to authority, we are neither obligated nor inclined to consider the merits of each of Mr. Hatami’s claims independently.

Even if we were to consider Mr. Hatami’s claims on appeal, there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court abused its discretion. In effect, the court held multiple hearings throughout 2005 on the motions to modify support and to modify custody originally filed by Mr. Hatami in December 2004. Custody was modified per stipulation of the parties on April 15, 2005, and again modified by order of July 12, 2005. Support was modified by order filed on June 14, 2005, based on explicit waivers by the parties, including a waiver of the right to appeal. Further, the court subsequently considered motions for new trial, to vacate and to rescind all of these prior orders. In each case, the court held hearings, took evidence and stated detailed reasons for its orders on the record. Not only does the record on appeal not reveal abuse of discretion, it reveals that the trial court exercised its discretion in a prudent and well supported manner, both legally and factually. If anything, the trial court’s conduct was remarkably patient in the face of a litigant who continues to be threatened with vexatious litigant status for repeatedly filing unsupported motions seeking the same relief previously denied.

Disposition

The judgments are affirmed.

______________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

PREMO, J.

____________________________________

ELIA, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.

[1] “The parties were married in Iran, pursuant to Iranian law in 1993. The marriage produced one child in 2000. In June 2001, Ms. Bararpour filed for dissolution of the marriage, seeking sole custody and requesting a restraining order. On June 28, 2001, the trial court entered a temporary child support and custody order requiring the parents to share custody and ordering Mr. Hatami to pay child support in the amount of $663 per month and spousal support in the amount of $553 per month, as well as 50 percent of the daycare expenses. However, after losing his job, Mr. Hatami moved to modify the original order. On January 30, 2002, at a hearing on his motion, the court reduced the child support to $171 per month while the issue of temporary spousal support was reserved.

“The matter proceeded to trial on November 7, 2002. After hearing evidence and argument on the issues of marital property, child custody and support, the court divided the marital assets and debts, ordered the payment of attorney fees, ordered joint legal custody of the child with primary physical custody to Ms. Bararpour and visitation for Mr. Hatami, denied spousal support and continued the January 30, 2002 child support order, finding that there was no change in circumstances.” (Marriage of Barapour and Hatami (Feb. 25, 2004, H025603) [nonpub. opn.] pp. 1-2, fn. omitted.)

[2] See: Marriage of Barapour and Hatami (Feb. 25, 2004, H025603) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Marriage of Barapour and Hatami (Aug. 21, 2003, H024818) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Marriage of Barapour and Hatami (Dec. 29, 2004, H027209) [nonpub. opn]; In re Marriage of Barapour and Hatami (Dec. 29, 2004, H027460) [nonpub. opn].