Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. VDAVS048160, David R. Proulx, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.
The Law Firm of Fox and Fox, Frank O. Fox, and Claire S. Fox, for Appellant.
Denise Adamyk, in pro. per., for Respondent.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Douglas M. Press, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul Reynaga, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Mary Dahlberg, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services.
OPINION
McKINSTER, J.
Appellant Ray Adamyk (father) appeals an order of the San Bernardino County Superior Court ordering him to pay child support and spousal support to his former wife, respondent Denise Adamyk (mother). Father contends that, as the court had previously ruled it had no jurisdiction over the issue, it erred in reconsidering and reversing that order, and thus in imposing the child support and spousal support order. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The action between mother and father for dissolution of their marriage was originally filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The judgment of dissolution was entered in 2002. The court granted custody of the couple’s son (Jack) to father, and custody of their two daughters (Christy and Beth) to mother. Father was ordered to pay child support of $4,000 per month and spousal support of $2,500 per month.
The Los Angeles court made changes in the custody, child support and spousal support orders from time to time.
In early 2003, the court modified the support orders: father was to pay $3,064 per month in child support, and $1,001 in spousal support. In April 2003, custody of the two daughters was changed from mother to father, but the court did not modify the outstanding child support order.
In June 2004, the Los Angeles court terminated child support from father to mother, as all three children were residing with father. The court ordered mother to pay $447 per month for child support.
In September 2005, the court changed custody of Jack from father to mother. The issue of child support was not addressed.
In February 2006, respondent San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services (CSS) registered the 2002 dissolution judgment, and the 2005 change of custody order in the San Bernardino County Superior Court.
After the registration of the judgment in San Bernardino County, the Los Angeles court in August 2006 entered a stipulated order, changing custody of Beth from father to mother. Child support was not addressed in the stipulation.
In October 2006, mother filed a motion to modify the child and spousal support orders in the San Bernardino court. The motion was heard in December 2006, and the court ordered father to pay $3,241 per month in child support, and to pay spousal support of $2,500 per month. By the time the San Bernardino court entered this support order, Jack had turned age 18 and was no longer a high school student.
In February 2007, father moved to stay enforcement of the San Bernardino court orders. Father averred that he had not received notice of the San Bernardino proceedings. He argued that, in the absence of notice, he was deprived of the opportunity to show that the San Bernardino court lacked jurisdiction to enter any orders modifying support, and that the Los Angeles court had exclusive jurisdiction to do so.
The San Bernardino court vacated its orders of December 4, 2006, ordered that the spousal support of $2,500 per month continue and set a hearing on child support.
On February 20, 2007, the San Bernardino court ordered father to pay $916 per month in child support.
Father moved to set aside the new support order on the ground that the San Bernardino court lacked jurisdiction. In April 2007, the San Bernardino court granted this motion and vacated the orders of December 4, 2006, and February 20, 2007.
The San Bernardino court, on its own motion, reconsidered the matter in June 2007. The court reaffirmed its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction to modify the Los Angeles support orders.
On June 15, 2007, CSS filed a motion for reconsideration and requested reinstatement of the February 20, 2007, support order. Father opposed CSS’s motion as an improper request for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, as there were no new facts or different law.
On July 9, 2007, the San Bernardino court concluded that it had been in error to vacate its modified child support orders. It therefore again ordered father to pay $916 per month for child support.
Father now appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. The San Bernardino Court Had Inherent Power to Correct Its Ruling
Father first argues that it was procedurally improper for the San Bernardino court to reconsider its rulings vacating the support orders. CSS had moved for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, but that motion was improper as it did not meet the requirements for reconsideration under that provision: i.e., new facts or law.
Father’s contention was recently answered, however, in In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301. As the court there noted, “The California Supreme Court held, in Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094 (Le Francois), that even when Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 . . . precludes a party from moving for reconsideration, a trial court has inherent authority to correct an erroneous ruling on its own motion.” (In re Marriage of Barthold, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303.)
To the extent father suggests that reconsideration was improper because the order reconsidered was “permanent” rather than “interim,” the Barthold court rejected that argument also. Even though the California Supreme Court held in Le Francois that “the court’s ability to reconsider interim orders does not necessarily apply to final orders” (Le Francois, supra, 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1105, fn. 4, second italics added), the Barthold court regarded that observation as “a cautionary statement that its holding in Le Francois may not apply to all final orders, an issue not examined in that case,” whereas, “[i]n fact, the plain language of subdivision (e) of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1008 states that ‘[t]his section . . . applies to all applications to reconsider any order . . ., whether the order . . . is interim or final.’ ” (In re Marriage of Barthold, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1312.)
II. The San Bernardino Court Had Proper Authority to Modify the Los Angeles Child Support Order
CSS registered the Los Angeles County judgment in San Bernardino County in February 2006. Under Family Code section 5601, a local child support agency responsible for enforcing support orders may register the support orders made in another county. The agency should file “(1) An endorsed file copy of the most recent support order or a copy thereof. [¶] (2) A statement of arrearages . . . . [and] [¶] (3) A statement . . . showing the post office address of the local child support agency, [and] the last known place of residence or post office address of the obligor . . . .” (Fam. Code, § 5601, subd. (a).)
The agency is required to send notice to the obligor parent (Fam. Code, § 5601, subd. (c)), who then has 20 days to move to vacate the registration (Fam. Code, § 5603).
Family Code section 5601, subdivision (e), provides that upon registration, “the clerk of the court shall forward a notice of registration to the courts in other counties and states in which the original order for support and any modifications were issued or registered. No further proceedings regarding the obligor’s support obligations shall be filed in other counties.” (Italics added.)
Father complains that, although CSS registered the 2002 judgment and the 2005 custody order (i.e., changing custody of Jack from father to mother), it did not comply with Family Code section 5601, because it failed to register the last support order that had been made by the Los Angeles court. That support order, entered in June 2004, ordered mother to pay $447 per month in child support, as all three children were then in father’s custody. Father argues that, at the time of registration, he was not an “obligor” on any outstanding child support order and mother was not the “obligee” of any existing child support order. He contends, therefore, that the entire registration proceeding was defective.
Father’s remedy, however, was to move to vacate the registration in San Bernardino County within 20 days. He failed to do so. He argues that this failure should be excused because “there was nothing to defend against any proper registration.” Father is mistaken. If he believed the registration was improper, he was provided a statutory remedy to rectify the error. He failed to object within the proper time to the registration in San Bernardino County.
In addition, although CSS did not register the latest support order of June 2004, it did register a later order that had changed custody of one of the children from father to mother. The change of custody order apparently overlooked the need to change the support orders, which should have been the natural consequence of the change of custody.
The San Bernardino court, in entering its orders, relied in part on In re Marriage of Straeck (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 617. Father contends that the court misconstrued that case, which concerned an earlier version of the statutes concerning registration of support orders.
In Straeck, the operative statute (former Code Civ. Proc., § 1697) was part of the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1968 (RURESA). (In re Marriage of Straeck, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 617, 622.) Under former Code of Civil Procedure section 1697, a support order made in one California county could be registered in any county where the obligor or the child resided, using RURESA procedures. (In re Marriage of Straeck, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 617, 622.)
Under the current statutory scheme, Family Code section 5600 et seq., provides that a local child support agency, such as CSS, or the obligee, may register an order for support that was obtained in another county. The order may be registered “in any county in which the obligor, the obligee, or the child who is the subject of the order resides, or in any county in which the obligor has income, assets, or any other property.” (Fam. Code, § 5600, subd. (b).) The registration was thus permitted in San Bernardino County, where mother and at least one child resided.
Although father repeatedly argues that the San Bernardino court was without jurisdiction to act, the real issue is venue, not jurisdiction. (In re Marriage of Straeck, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 617, 621-622.) As in Straeck, the superior court in any county has subject matter jurisdiction over family law matters. (Id. at p. 621; Fam. Code, § 200.) Father is a California resident, subject to the in personam jurisdiction of the California courts. (In re Marriage of Straeck, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 617, 621-622; Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.)
The appropriate court to exercise that jurisdiction is the one with the proper venue. Under Family Code section 17400, the proper venue for an action or proceeding where a local child support agency is establishing, modifying, or enforcing a support order depends upon certain listed circumstances. If public assistance is being provided, venue is in the county providing the assistance. (Fam. Code, § 17400, subd. (n)(1)(A).) If no public assistance is being provided, then venue is in the county where the child resides. (Fam. Code, § 17400, subd. (n)(1)(B).) If no current support is due, then venue is in the county which last provided assistance. (Fam. Code, § 17400, subd. (n)(1)(C).) If none of these provisions is applicable, then venue is in the county where the obligee resides. (Fam. Code, § 17400, subd. (n)(1)(D).) Even though father and one of the children, Christy, live in Los Angeles County, CSS is not seeking support for Christy. Rather, support is being sought for Beth, who resides in San Bernardino County with mother. (The Los Angeles court entered a stipulated order changing custody of Beth from father to mother after the judgment was registered in San Bernardino County. The stipulated change of custody order did not address support.) In addition, mother’s counsel represented to the court that mother had received state aid. Thus, venue is proper in San Bernardino County.
As in Straeck, “It would be an anomaly to hold that by enacting simplified enforcement procedures for registration of a judgment the Legislature intended to foreclose modification thereof.” (In re Marriage of Straeck, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 617, 623.) The venue for modification of the support orders was proper in San Bernardino County, and the judgment was properly registered there. The San Bernardino court had full authority to enter its order modifying child support, and ordering father to pay $916 per month for the child, Beth.
DISPOSITION
The San Bernardino court could properly correct its mistake regarding jurisdiction and venue over the support proceedings. The order for child support is affirmed.
We concur: HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J., RICHLI, J.