NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.115 DONDERO, J. INTRODUCTION In yet another appeal arising from this exceptionally litigious family law proceeding, appellant Ester Adut appeals from the trial court's order terminating respondent Joshua Sakov's obligation to pay spousal support.

To gain more quantities of money D.

We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.

1 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The history of this proceeding is well known to the parties and this court. We need not recite it here. On October 26, 2010, respondent filed an order to show cause (OSC) to terminate spousal support.

Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. Ramiro Ibarra added it Mar 01, There’s a problem loading this menu right now. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Manual practico de construccion jaime nisnovich pdf descargar gratis. Manual Practico Para La Construccion Jaime Nisnovich Pdf – southernstaff Create a free website Powered. Edicion 1 Aug We made a few missteps after that, trying to hit Enter to pull up search results and looking for the Go button equivalent.

On December 7, 2010, appellant filed a responsive declaration opposing the OSC. The matter was heard on December 9, 2010. On May 31, 2011, the trial court filed its order after hearing in which it ordered spousal support terminated as of December 31, 2010. On December 8, 2011, appellant filed an application to set aside the support order under Family Code section 3691. As grounds for her request, she alleged fraud, perjury, and lack of notice. Specifically, she claimed she had not been given notice that the trial court would be making an order addressing the length of the parties' marriage.

She also asserted that respondent or his attorney committed perjury in advising the court that he had continuously paid spousal support. On October 31, 2012, the trial court filed its order after hearing granting appellant's request to set aside the May 31, 2011 order terminating spousal support. Among its findings, the court observed respondent and his attorney had 'substantially misstate[d]' the length of time he had paid spousal support to appellant. The court concluded the decision to terminate spousal support had been made in reliance 'on false information provided by [respondent].' Respondent did not appeal from this order.

On December 17, 2012, respondent filed a request for a temporary order staying his spousal support obligation pending hearing. On January 7, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on respondent's request.

The trial court denied the request for the stay. The court also noted that respondent had not explicitly requested modification or termination of support. His attorney stated that he did not file a motion because 'with that [May 31, 2011] order set aside we are now back to where my client's [October 2010] motion to modify or terminate spousal support is now to be heard..'

On January 9, 2013, the trial court filed its order after hearing. The order reflects the matter was continued to January 14, 2013 for further hearing 'on [respondent's] motion filed to terminate or modify spousal support.' On January 14, 2013, a hearing was held on respondent's request.

Appellant did not appear at the hearing. On January 22, 2013, appellant filed a motion to vacate the January 9, 2013 order. On January 25, 2013, the trial court filed its order after the hearing held on January 14, 2013, ordering the termination of spousal support. On February 7, 2013, appellant filed an application for reissuance of her motion to vacate and to set the hearing date for no later than March 22, 2013.

On February 14, 2013, appellant filed a motion vacate the order entered on January 25, 2013. On March 26, 2013, the trial court granted appellant's motion to vacate the orders made at the January 14, 2013 hearing on the ground that she had been given invalid notice. On April 18, 2013, respondent filed a status conference statement seeking a conference to set another hearing on his October 26, 2010 motion to terminate spousal support.

On April 25, 2013, the trial court filed its order granting the request to set a status conference. On June 28, 2013, the trial court ordered a hearing on the October 26, 2010 motion. On July 8, 2013, appellant filed a request to set aside the June 28, 2013 order. She argued there was no legal basis upon which to set the October 26, 2010 OSC for trial. On September 9, 2013, the trial court denied the request to set aside the June 28, 2013 order.

The court ordered spousal support terminated as of January 1, 2011. On September 23, 2013, the trial court filed its findings and order after hearing. In addition to terminating support, the order reflects appellant was ordered to repay any sums of spousal support paid by respondent from January 1, 2011 through the date of the hearing. On October 17, 2013, appellant filed a motion to set aside the September 23, 2013 order on the ground that the order was in excess of jurisdiction. On December 3, 2013, the trial court filed its order denying the motion to set aside the order terminating spousal support. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I.