RFO hearing in California

2023(See In re Marriage of Binette (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1127 (Binette).) At the beginning of the RFO hearing in this case, Father’s counsel stated that he was not requesting an evidentiary hearing and “just want[ed] this resolved today.” Mother’s counsel did not object or voice opposition to that proposal, and the court acknowledged that if the parties “just want to 19 submit” on the papers, they could do so.

2023(See In re Marriage of Binette (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1127 (Binette).) At the beginning of the RFO hearing in this case, Father’s counsel stated that he was not requesting an evidentiary hearing and “just want[ed] this resolved today.” Mother’s counsel did not object or voice opposition to that proposal, and the court acknowledged that if the parties “just want to 19 submit” on the papers, they could do so.

2025At a February 21, 2024 hearing on Mother’s RFO (“February 21 hearing”), the trial court denied Father’s request to deviate from guideline child support and ordered him to pay Mother $3,539 per month in child 1 “The DissoMaster is one of two privately developed computer programs used to calculate guideline child support as required by [Family Code] section 4055, which involves, literally, an algebraic formula.” (In re Marriage of Schulze (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 519, 524, fn. 2 .) 2 support, “retroactive to January 24, 2024”—the date Mother filed the RFO.

2025At a February 21, 2024 hearing on Mother’s RFO (“February 21 hearing”), the trial court denied Father’s request to deviate from guideline child support and ordered him to pay Mother $3,539 per month in child 1 “The DissoMaster is one of two privately developed computer programs used to calculate guideline child support as required by [Family Code] section 4055, which involves, literally, an algebraic formula.” (In re Marriage of Schulze (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 519, 524, fn. 2 .) 2 support, “retroactive to January 24, 2024”—the date Mother filed the RFO.

2023In City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780 , defense counsel twice orally requested that the trial court rule on written evidentiary objections but the trial court neglected to do so. 8 (Id. at p. 784.) The appellate court concluded that the written evidentiary objections had been preserved for appellate review because “[i]t would have been a fruitless or idle act to have interposed a third oral request for rulings.” (Id. at p. 785; see also Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1580 [party did not waive his evidentiary objections where h

2023In City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780 , defense counsel twice orally requested that the trial court rule on written evidentiary objections but the trial court neglected to do so. 8 (Id. at p. 784.) The appellate court concluded that the written evidentiary objections had been preserved for appellate review because “[i]t would have been a fruitless or idle act to have interposed a third oral request for rulings.” (Id. at p. 785; see also Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1580 [party did not waive his evidentiary objections where h

2023(See Robert J. v. Catherine D. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1527 (Robert J.) John filed a timely appeal. 3 DISCUSSION In opening the RFO hearing, the trial court expressed consternation as to John’s objective for filing his motion: “So what I have before me is an RFO that was filed on December 31st, 2019.

2023(See Robert J. v. Catherine D. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1500, 1527 (Robert J.) John filed a timely appeal. 3 DISCUSSION In opening the RFO hearing, the trial court expressed consternation as to John’s objective for filing his motion: “So what I have before me is an RFO that was filed on December 31st, 2019.

2023(See Robinson v. Grossman (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 634, 648 [failure to object in the trial court on ground that declaration was not signed under penalty of perjury waives the issue]; Vinson v. Kinsey (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1166 , 1178, fn. 7, citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.111(c) [“absent timely objection that a declaration does not meet content requirements, ‘any objection will be considered waived, and the declaration may be considered as evidence’ ”].) We do not agree with Salkhi’s belated argument in his reply that objecting would have been futile based on the trial court’s brief comment

2023(See Robinson v. Grossman (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 634, 648 [failure to object in the trial court on ground that declaration was not signed under penalty of perjury waives the issue]; Vinson v. Kinsey (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1166 , 1178, fn. 7, citing Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.111(c) [“absent timely objection that a declaration does not meet content requirements, ‘any objection will be considered waived, and the declaration may be considered as evidence’ ”].) We do not agree with Salkhi’s belated argument in his reply that objecting would have been futile based on the trial court’s brief comment

2023In City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780 , defense counsel twice orally requested that the trial court rule on written evidentiary objections but the trial court neglected to do so. 8 (Id. at p. 784.) The appellate court concluded that the written evidentiary objections had been preserved for appellate review because “[i]t would have been a fruitless or idle act to have interposed a third oral request for rulings.” (Id. at p. 785; see also Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1580 [party did not waive his evidentiary objections where h

2023In City of Long Beach v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 780 , defense counsel twice orally requested that the trial court rule on written evidentiary objections but the trial court neglected to do so. 8 (Id. at p. 784.) The appellate court concluded that the written evidentiary objections had been preserved for appellate review because “[i]t would have been a fruitless or idle act to have interposed a third oral request for rulings.” (Id. at p. 785; see also Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, 1580 [party did not waive his evidentiary objections where h

2022(See rule 3.1332(c) [“substitution of trial counsel” may constitute good cause “only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice”]; Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 18 [no abuse of discretion in denying trial continuance where “request was predicated on the trial court’s taking the ‘unavailability’ of the expert on faith, without any substantial explanation”].) Finally, although Mother did not appear at the RFO hearing, she never cited her own unavailability as a ground for a good cause continuance.

2022(See rule 3.1332(c) [“substitution of trial counsel” may constitute good cause “only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice”]; Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 18 [no abuse of discretion in denying trial continuance where “request was predicated on the trial court’s taking the ‘unavailability’ of the expert on faith, without any substantial explanation”].) Finally, although Mother did not appear at the RFO hearing, she never cited her own unavailability as a ground for a good cause continuance.