California Rules of Court and modification

[ProPerDoper]

What is the name of your state? California

Anyone know the CRC rule # that states when any party is filing for a modification of child support, an Income and Expense Declaration must be filed along with the motion for modification?

Is it CRC 5.128?

 

[CourtClerk]

I just read that one you referenced, and no, that's not it, and unfortunately, I need to run off to work. I may be able to find it once I get there (if I remember), but I can't do it this morning... the rules for Family Court in the CRC are almost 400 pages long (not interested in reading that for pleasure).

Do some reasearch if you really need it, however, I can't imagine that anyone would take a modification without it at the filing windows and if they took it there, it should be kicked back before the modification hearing, because it can't go into the courtroom without it.

courtinfo.ca.gov
leginfo.ca.gov

Those 2 sites you should be able to find the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Court. I've looked on some modification forms to see if it's referenced, but not on anything I looked at real quick.

 

[ProPerDoper]

Modification hearing without I & E

I am facing a hearing where my ex has filed for modification of the existing order, without her filing an I&E. The order she seeks is to have the court order an addendum of sorts to the existing order for support to be paid on any bonus income that I receive.

She has only checked the appropriate box 3c on FL310 to modify existing order, and penciled in "To include bonus income & adjust income."

My response will be to object and request the court deny her motion outright, given the fact that she has not filed an I&E as required for a modification of any kind.

She has also failed to articulate her request within a declaration. She has set forth no argument in support of her request, and local rules require that all facts and declaration in support of her request must be contained within the pleadings as though set forth in full. If the court hears her argument, I would be prejudiced by the element of surprise.

Her goal is to obtain an order which would require me to pay support on my bonus income, while at the same time avoid an order which would require her to factor her overtime income into the equation. Interestingly enough, she attached as evidence the pertinent portion of the transcript from trial, where the judge already stated that if he was to make an order of this sort, he would include both her overtime and my bonus income into the order. It seems he just overlooked this part of making his order.

I've already sent her a stipulation which would resolve this, taking both forms of income into consideration for the support calculation per Local Rule. She won't cooperate in any form, so we'll see what the judge says about her refusal to meet and confer.

BTW.... for perpective, I have 68% time share with our two minor children. Even so, due to the delta in our incomes, I pay her monthly support.