210 Cal. App. 4th 363
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Barth v. Barth Ohio proceedings held that Ohio lacked jurisdiction due to Andrea’s lack of six-month residency prior to filing; Ohio orders were void and not binding in California.
- Jeffrey moved to California; California proceedings issued child support under Family Code §4009 retroactive to the date of initial filing, crediting amounts paid under Ohio orders.
- Ohio judgments were not registered in California and were treated as void for jurisdictional purposes; Jeffrey sought California rule application and sought to avoid Ohio orders.
- California commissioner and court ultimately set retroactive support amounts and imputed income to Jeffrey for 2008–2009 after finding Jeffrey’s financial disclosures were false or misleading.
- Trial court’s findings included credibility determinations about Jeffrey’s income, expenses, and conduct, leading to imputation of income and retroactive support under §4009; judgment affirmed on appeal.
- The issue on appeal concerns whether §4009 retroactivity and income imputation were proper and within the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §4009 retroactivity was proper | Barth argues §4009 should not apply to back to 2004 | Barth contends statute authorizes retroactive original support orders | Yes, §4009Proper retroactivity applies |
| Whether equal protection was violated | Barth claims unequal treatment compared to CA temporary orders | No equal protection violation; Ohio orders were void | No equal protection violation |
| Whether income should be imputed to Jeffrey | Imputation justified by Bonneau’s evidence | Jeffrey argues no reliable basis to impute income | Income properly imputed; discretion supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether retroactive calculation and amounts awarded were within discretion | Retroactive calculation aligns with prior filing date | Discretionary range and credibility findings control | Yes, no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court properly credited past payments against arrears | Credits should reduce arrears | Arrears calculated after full retroactive period | Credits accounted; arrears determined accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Santa Clara v. Perry, 18 Cal.4th 435 (1998) (interpretation of retroactivity for original orders (Perry))
- In re Bardzik, 165 Cal.App.4th 1291 (2008) (imputing income; discerning earning capacity vs. last income rule)
- In re Aylesworth, 106 Cal.App.3d 869 (1980) (standard of review; abuse of discretion in support orders)
- In re Kerr, 77 Cal.App.4th 87 (1999) (guideline calculations; substantial evidence standard)
- In re Mosley, 165 Cal.App.4th 1375 (2008) (modification context; earning capacity evidence considerations)