Filed 4/20/22 Kallimanis v. Sohn CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| ALEXANDRIA NICHOLE KALLIMANIS,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTON LEE SOHN,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B309244
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GF003624)
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy M. Pellman, Judge. Affirmed.
Carl James Sohn for Defendant and Appellant.
Arbat and Deian V. Kazachki for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
This is an appeal by a father, claiming he was entitled to reimbursement for child care expenses he advanced over a period of several years. The trial court gave him only a fraction of the amount requested. Because the father has failed to provide an adequate record for review, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
It is undisputed that in March 2012, appellant Anton Lee Sohn and respondent Alexandria Nicole Kallimanis agreed to a judgment that determined Sohn was the father of the couple’s two minor children, that the couple would have joint legal and physical custody, that Sohn was to pay Kallimanis monthly child support of $1,500, and that child care costs were to be shared equally. They agreed that Sohn would advance the child care payments, and that Kallimanis would reimburse him for her share when she became gainfully employed; in the trial court and on this appeal, the parties disagree about whether Kallimanis’ obligation to reimburse Sohn accrued when she became gainfully employed rather than as of the date of the agreement — a more than six-year difference. Although Sohn’s briefs on appeal tell us that, at the time the trial court approved the judgment, it ordered Kallimanis to find a job and to inform Sohn when she was gainfully employed — and that her obligation to reimburse Sohn for the child care costs would not begin until she found work — the reporter’s transcript of the March 2012 proceedings does not include any language remotely supporting that assertion and the judgment is not part of the record.
According to Sohn, he frequently inquired about Kallimanis’ employment status, but she either ignored him or said she was still going to school (studying to be a hairdresser). In January 2020, Sohn says he filed a request for reimbursement for half of the child care costs for the past eight years, $75,694.99, plus more than $30,000 in interest, plus legal fees of $12,000. His motion is not in the appellate record, but we do have a copy of the court’s order. In September 2020, the family court found that Sohn was entitled to reimbursement for only the child care costs incurred in 2019 and for three months of 2020, a total of $6,180.00 (on the ground that the reimbursement provision was not retroactive); Sohn’s requests for interest and attorney fees were denied.
Sohn appeals from the September 2020 order, contending it does not conform to the parties’ stipulated judgment.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Neither party addresses the standard of review. Whether it is de novo, or substantial evidence, or abused discretion, our result would be the same. Sohn’s failure to provide an adequate record on appeal makes it impossible for us to determine whether the trial court erred.
According to the family court’s 2020 order, the 2012 judgment provided, as relevant, that “[a]ny child care costs shall be shared equally. [Sohn] shall advance the payment to which [Kallimanis] pay [sic] her share back to [Sohn] when she becomes gainfully employed.” Generously construed, this provision is ambiguous — but we have no context within which to construe it. Given Sohn’s failure to provide a record sufficient to support his arguments, the reason for the alleged ambiguity is irrelevant. Although Sohn’s briefs say the family court ordered Kallimanis to find a job within three months, there is nothing in the record to support that assertion.
The order is affirmed based on Sohn’s failure to provide an adequate record on appeal. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [appellant must furnish an adequate record of the challenged proceedings]; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186 [problem is “fatal” when appellant fails to provide a record sufficient to support the claims asserted]; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 442 [appellant’s failure to prove an adequate record precludes appellate review]; Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [it is the appellant’s burden to present an adequate record of trial court proceedings].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Kallimanis is awarded her costs of appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
VOGEL, J.*
We concur:
CHANEY, J.
BENDIX, Acting P. J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
