Michell Bravo v. Baltazar Ibanez (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff filed this post-judgment motion for contempt/modification on May 13, 2011, alleging that the defendant willfully failed to abide by the terms of a stipulation entered into on August 18, 2009, in that Mr. Ibanez failed to provide her with documentation concerning his new employment.   In addition, Ms. Bravo asserts that there has been a substantial change in the defendant's financial situation since the last downward modification in August 2009, which requires an upward adjustment in the amount of support he should pay.

At a hearing on October 24, 2011, this court heard the testimony of both parties.   Mr. Ibanez was represented and Ms. Bravo was self-represented.   A number of exhibits were introduced.   After considering the testimony of the parties, reviewing the documents, including the Dissolution Agreement, Stipulation of August 18, 2009, and updated financial affidavits, considering the relevant case law and statutes, the court finds as follows.

The parties were divorced on 9/14/07 at which time Mr. Ibanez was earning approximately $330,000.   His support orders included $850.00 per week in child support and alimony in the amount of $1,250.00 per week for a ten-year period.   In February of 2009, the defendant lost his job.   By stipulation dated August 18, 2009, the support orders were modified to $500.00 per month in child support and $400.00 per month in alimony.   The obligation for each party to pay $500.00 per month towards the children's college education was also suspended while the defendant was unemployed.   In addition, the agreement required the defendant to advise the plaintiff when he regained employment and to provide her with documentation concerning his new income to facilitate modification of the orders.   Per the agreement of August 18, 2009, any such modification would be retroactive to the date Mr. Ibanez again became gainfully employed.

Mr. Ibanez obtained new employment on August 2, 2010 with CBS Radio Stations, in Sacramento, California.   His annual compensation was $65,000, plus bonuses, which there is no evidence that he received.   On February 21, 2011, the defendant signed a new contract with CBS Radio, for a position with an annual salary of $90,000.   In addition, since 2009, Mr. Ibanez has worked as an independent disc jockey approximately twice a month.   While initially compensation for this work was low, it has increased to $699.00 to $899.00 per “gig.”   The defendant also receives endorsement compensation which is reflected in his CBS salary.

Following the stipulation signed in August 2009, Mr. Ibanez was current with his newly agreed upon support obligations.   When he began working for CBS Radio on August 2, 2010, he verbally advised the plaintiff of his new employment;  however, did not forward documentation reflecting his increased compensation.   He also advised the plaintiff of his new position in February 2011;  however, he neglected to provide supporting documentation.   On his own accord, Mr. Ibanez increased his overall support payment to $2,000.00 per month.   Ms. Bravo is currently unemployed and provides for the overall care of their two children.   In 2011 she received a nominal distribution from a family trust fund.

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

The court finds that Mr. Ibanez failed to provide Ms. Bravo with the documentation concerning his new job, both in August 2010, and February 2011.   While this does not comply with the terms of the stipulation, dated August 18, 2009, it does not rise to the level of contempt.   The defendant did advise the plaintiff verbally concerning his changed circumstances.

Nonetheless, the court finds that Mr. Ibanez is in arrears in his support payments, as discussed below.

MOTION FOR MODIFICATION

The court finds that Mr. Ibanez has experienced a significant change in his financial circumstances since August 2, 2010, when he became employed by CBS Radio.   His circumstances further improved on February 22, 2011, when he obtained a new position with the same company.   Upward modification of the support orders is warranted and will be effective retroactively, as per the stipulation.

Between August 2, 2010 and February 22, 2011, the court calculates the amount of child support owed by Mr. Ibanez per the Child Support Guidelines was $329.00 per week.   The amount of child support, per the guidelines, between February 22, 2011 and the present is $354.00 per week.

As to alimony between August 2, 2010 and February 22, 2011, the court determines that Mr. Ibanez's payment to Ms. Bravo should have been 250.00 per week, for a total weekly support order of $579.00, and a total monthly support order of $2,509.00.   From February 22, 2011, going forward the alimony payment to Ms. Bravo is ordered to be $300.00 per week, for a total weekly support order of $654.00, or a monthly order of $2,834.

The total support monthly payment owed by Mr. Ibanez to Ms. Bravo between August 2, 2010 and February 22, 2011, which is 7.1 months, is $17,813.00.   Mr. Ibanez paid Ms. Bravo a total of $14,200.00 for this period.   Accordingly, the defendant is in arrears for this period in the amount of $3,613.00.   As to the time period between February 22, 2011 and the present, 8 months, the defendant owed total monthly support in the amount of $22,672.00.   The defendant paid the plaintiff approximately $16,000.00.   Accordingly, the defendant owes the plaintiff $6,890.00 in child support and alimony for this period.   The total arrearage owed by Mr. Ibanez $10,349.00.

ORDERS

1. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the arrearage of $10,349.00 by January 1, 2012.

2. The defendant shall pay child support in the amount of $354.00 per week, in accordance with the child support guidelines, effective immediately upon notice of these orders.   Payment is due on the Monday of each week.

3. The defendant shall pay alimony to the plaintiff in the amount of $300.00 per week, effectively immediately upon notice of these orders.   Payment is due on the Monday of each week.

4. The order requiring both parties to contribute to the children's college fund remains suspended until further court order.

By the Court,

WOLVEN, J.

Wolven, Carol A., J.