Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Affirmed.
Veronica Godinez, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Veronica Godinez appeals from an order of the family court denying her request for an increase in spousal support. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
This is the fifth appeal arising from the spousal support orders in the dissolution of the Godinez’s marriage. We draw our facts from these earlier decisions.
After 27 years, the marriage of Veronica and Louis Godinez was dissolved in November 1999. The family court found that Louis had net monthly income of $1,572.79, and that Veronica was unemployed and had no income. Louis was ordered to pay Veronica $780 spousal support per month until July 1, 2001, when the level of spousal support would be reduced to zero. The court admonished Veronica to make reasonable efforts to become self-supporting. Veronica appealed from this judgment. We affirmed it in a nonpublished opinion (Godinez v. Godinez (Feb. 21, 2001, B138654)).
In August 2000, Veronica filed an application for modification of the spousal support order. The court ordered Louis to pay $1,000 per month until July 1, 2001, when all spousal support would end.
In May 2001, Veronica again applied for a modification of spousal support. In June 2001, the court modified its support order, directing Louis to pay $500 per month until further order of the court.
In December 2001, Veronica sought a modification of the June 2001 spousal support order. She asked the court to increase spousal support to $1,600 per month because Louis’s income had increased to $50,000 per year. After the January hearing, the court found that Veronica was capable of earning at least $1,064 per month, and that there was no material change of circumstances justifying a modification of spousal support. Veronica appealed from this order, and we affirmed in a nonpublished opinion (Godinez v. Godinez (Aug. 22, 2003, B160055)).
In February 2004, Veronica again sought modification of spousal support. She asserted Louis’s income had increased to $6,000 per month, and that she was living in impoverished circumstances and in deteriorating health. According to her income and expense declaration, her sole monthly income was $500 in spousal support, and her monthly expenses were $807. She indicated that she was (or intended to be) a full-time student at a California State University campus, and that she had been unable to find employment. Louis filed a responsive declaration showing earnings of $71,293.04 in 2003, and joint income of $74,506 with his current wife. After a hearing in April 2004, the court found no material change of circumstances and denied the requested modification of spousal support. Veronica appealed from this order.
In a nonpublished opinion (Godinez v. Godinez (Aug. 22, 2005, B177250)), we affirmed, explaining that Louis’s income, by itself, did not warrant a modification of support absent a showing by Veronica of an increase in her needs since the last support order. We concluded Veronica had not made this showing, given that her spousal support of $500 per month, combined with her earning capacity of $1,064 per month, exceeded her stated monthly expenses of $807. We also found substantial evidence supported the family court’s determination that Veronica’s earning capacity was undiminished.
Veronica again applied for modification of support in July 2004. According to her supporting declarations, in addition to her spousal support, she earned $150 per month as a student assistant while enrolled as a full-time student at a California State University campus. She listed total proposed monthly expenses of $2,805. Louis filed an income and expense declaration showing monthly income of $5,492. After a hearing in October 2004, the family court found no material change of circumstances and denied Veronica’s application. The court noted Louis’s income had increased, but also stated that Veronica had made “de minimus efforts to provide for her own employment.” Veronica appealed.
In a nonpublished opinion in the litigation (Godinez v. Godinez (Jan. 17, 2006, B180194)), we affirmed. We found substantial evidence supported the family court’s conclusion that Veronica’s earning capacity had not diminished; although Veronica claimed her health had deteriorated, she also stated she was enrolled as a full-time college student and was working as a part-time student assistant. We also concluded Veronica had provided inadequate explanation for her proposed increased expenses. Thus the family court properly disregarded some of those expenses in reaching its conclusion that Veronica’s earning capacity and spousal support exceeded her needs.
On June 27, 2006, Veronica again sought a modification of spousal support. It is this motion that led to the order from which she presently appeals. Veronica listed her monthly income as $500 in spousal support and $82 in public assistance, and monthly expenses of $2,406. She asserted Louis has had annual income in excess of $70,249 for the past three years. In her declaration, she stated: “My health is poor and I am suffering. Chronic ongoing medical problems have worsened. Back pain makes me unable to sit straight for any extended time, while knee injuries and leg pain make it difficult to stand. Monthly doctor visits and expensive prescriptions are needed now.” As to her prospects for employment, she explained: “I am a college student at Cal State University in order to obtain needed qualifications for work since I have little to no employment history and facing over 50 age discrimination. I have difficulties with memory, concentration, and focus since I am living under duress with no future going on 55 years of age. I am an orphan refugee alone in the USA.” She further noted that her “old home” was rundown and in need of major repairs. She asked the court to increase her spousal support to $1,750 per month. Louis indicated his average monthly income was $5,250, and listed monthly expenses of $4,000.
At the hearing on the application, Veronica testified that she “had made efforts to become employable with several places that were just seasonal work. And also I am going to school in order to obtain qualifications.” The court noted that these same facts were true at the time of her previous applications for modification. Veronica testified that her health had deteriorated, and that although she had tried to work while going to school, it was too difficult for her to do that. She was making efforts to become gainfully employed, and hoped a degree would help make her “presentable for somebody to hire me.” She had been attending college for two and a half years, and would graduate in about a year. Asked what she intended to do with her degree, Veronica replied, “I was hoping to work for the government, if they will hire me.” The court asked Veronica what she had done to find employment in the past six months. She replied, “I have been going to school because I did not feel good. I have chronic fatigue, and I have no relatives. I am a refuge[e] from a communist country. And I was just going to school because it’s become very, very important for me just to graduate and have qualifications. Over the years, I had proven that I did make reasonable efforts to become self-supporting, but I guess it wasn’t enough for the court.” She admitted she had not looked for work in the past year.
Louis testified about his income and expenses. He also testified that Veronica did not work during the marriage, even though he had asked her to long before their divorce.
The court found there was not a sufficient change in circumstance since the last time Veronica sought a modification of support, and that Veronica had not shown she had been seeking employment. Based on the lack of a change in circumstances and Veronica’s lack of effort to become self-supporting, the court denied Veronica’s application for increased support. Veronica’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Veronica appeals from the order denying modification of spousal support. Louis has not made an appearance on appeal.
DISCUSSION
Veronica’s only legal argument on appeal is that the marital standard of living was incorrectly found to be $2,000 monthly, when it actually was $4,000. This claim relates back to the findings of the family law court at the time of the original judgment of dissolution in November 1999.
During the dissolution trial in September 1999, Veronica claimed spousal support should have been set based on Louis’s earning capacity, which she believed to be approximately $44,000, based on his prior earnings as a mechanic. The parties stipulated that Louis earned $37,115 in 1994; $45,000 in 1995; $35,414 in 1996; and that he did not work from November 1996 to November 1997, during which time the couple lived off their savings. The court found Louis had net monthly income of $1,572 at the time of the trial. The court also found that Louis had left his former position as a mechanic and changed to a lesser paying job during the marriage.
On appeal from that judgment, Veronica claimed Louis’s wages were not accurately reported or determined at the time of trial. She also claimed that in calculating the amount and duration of spousal support, the family court failed to consider statutory factors including the parties’ former standard of living and Louis’s earning ability. We found substantial evidence supported the family court’s findings, and rejected both claims in an unpublished opinion filed in February 2001 (B138654). Our decision that the family court properly determined Louis’s earnings and the marital standard of living is law of the case, and must be adhered to throughout the subsequent progress of this case. (Kowis v. Howard (1992) 3 Cal.4th 888, 893.) It is thus not subject to review or correction in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., SUZUKAWA, J.