Opinion
A168177
11-30-2023
In re the Marriage of KOMAL RATTAN and ABHIJIT PRASAD. v. ABHIJIT PRASAD, Appellant. KOMAL RATTAN, Respondent,
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. VF07356209.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rodriguez, J.
Representing himself, Abhijit Prasad seeks to set aside several judgments entered in dissolution proceedings with his former wife, Komal Rattan. Prasad's primary argument appears to be the judgments must be set aside due to Rattan's failure to serve her final declaration of disclosure. (Fam. Code, §§ 2105-2107; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) We affirm.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) This case has a long history, some of which is described in Prasad's prior appeals, including In re the Marriage of K.R. and A.P. (Apr. 9, 2020, A149624, A151036 [nonpub. opn.]). We incorporate by reference the factual and procedural background from that opinion and recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issues presented in this appeal. Rattan failed to file a respondent's brief so we "decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)
Prasad and Rattan married in 1999, separated in 2007, and a judgment terminated their marital status in 2010, reserving the trial court's jurisdiction over all other issues. The court entered judgment on the division of the parties' property in June 2016 (property judgment), and judgment on child and spousal support issues in December 2016 (support judgment). Prasad appealed, and we affirmed both judgments. (In re the Marriage of K.R. and A.P., supra, A149624, A151036.)
On September 16, 2021, Prasad filed another motion to set aside the property and support judgments. (In July 2016, January 2017, and August 2017, Prasad filed three unsuccessful motions to set aside the property and support judgments.) Prasad argued that setting aside the judgments was required under section 2107 due to Rattan's alleged failure to satisfy her disclosure obligations under section 2105. After conducting a long cause hearing, the trial court issued a statement of decision denying the motion. It concluded Rattan complied with her disclosure obligations, and that Prasad's argument was precluded by res judicata. Prasad appeals the denial of his September 16 motion.
The trial court also observed that, in November 2016, Prasad filed another motion to set aside the property judgment, alleging a "breach of duty for non-disclosure." In March 2017, the court held a long cause hearing and denied the motion. Prasad has failed to provide us with a copy of that motion and any opposition or the order denying the motion.
We review a trial court's division of community property and support orders for abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Schleich (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 267, 276.) We review its factual findings for substantial evidence. (Rivera v. Hillard (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 964, 986.) We independently review issues of statutory interpretation. (N.S. v. D.M. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1047.)
Prasad contends the property and support judgments must be set aside because Rattan failed to comply with her disclosure obligations. We are not persuaded for at least two reasons. First, after considering the evidence admitted at the hearing, the trial court concluded Rattan complied with her obligations. While Prasad cites allegedly conflicting evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor second-guess the court's credibility determinations. (In re Marriage of Ciprari (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 94.) Second, even assuming she failed to satisfy her obligations, setting aside the judgments would be warranted only if the violation resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (In re Marriage of Steiner &Hosseini (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 519, 525-527.) No such prejudice appears here. Third - and while we do not affirm on this basis - it appears Prasad's motion is untimely. (§ 2122, subd. (f) [motion to set aside judgment due to disclosure violation must be filed within one year of the date the complaining party discovers, or should have discovered, the failure to comply]; In re Marriage of Georgiou &Leslie (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 561, 571-572.)
Prasad raises other issues that he argues require the set aside of the support judgment. We do not address them because our jurisdiction is" 'limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the judgment appealed from.'" (Ellis v. Ellis (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 837, 846.) In his notice of appeal, Prasad indicated he was appealing the denial of his September 16, 2021 motion to set aside property and support judgments. The only issue raised in that motion concerns Rattan's alleged failure to comply with her disclosure obligation, and our jurisdiction on appeal is thus limited. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's May 25, 2023 order is affirmed. No costs are awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
WE CONCUR: Tucher, P. J., Fujisaki, J.