- 6 -
Sometime before the issuance of the April 1991 order, Ms.
Ambrose appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Court of
Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate
District, Division 6 (court of appeal). In its review of the
appeal, the court of appeal twice noted that the Superior Court
"suggested" that $9,500 of the family support payments be
allocated to spousal support. The figures proposed by the
Superior Court were utilized by the court of appeal in
determining whether the undesignated family support payments were
unreasonable. The court of appeal stated that Ms. Ambrose did
not demonstrate that her "present needs" were greater than the
amount of the spousal support of $9,500. Also, the expenses for
the children were deemed to be adequately covered by the child
support allocation of $8,000. Ultimately, in an opinion filed
May 15, 1991, the court of appeal rejected Ms. Ambrose’s
contention that the amounts were unreasonable and affirmed the
Superior Court's decision.6
6 A footnote on the first page of the opinion of the court
of appeal states:
The order, based on the trial court's July 1990
memorandum of opinion, was filed in April 1991 after
appellant filed her notice of appeal. Since the
court's decision in the memorandum of opinion was made
prior to the notice of appeal, and since the April
order does not amend that decision in any way, we may
treat the notice of appeal as a premature but valid
notice from the April order. [Citation omitted.]
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011