Marriage of Meek CA4/2
Opinion
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
Gloria Meek appeals judgment entered reducing her permanent spousal support to
1 $400 a month. Gloria contends the order reducing support was not in compliance with
California Rules of Court, rule 5.92, subdivisions (b)(2) and (a)(4), and rule 5.260(a),
because Frankie Meek did not file a request for support modification, and no current
income and expense declarations were filed. Gloria also argues Frankie did not meet his
burden of establishing a change of circumstances, and the trial court erred in retroactively
reducing her spousal support.
We conclude that the failure to file a request for modification of spousal support
and current income and expense declarations does not constitute prejudicial error,
because Frankie orally requested spousal support modification and the trial court notified
the parties it was setting a spousal support modification hearing, to be conducted
concurrently with the continued hearing on Gloria’s request for arrears. Neither party
objected to the combined hearing on arrears and modified spousal support; both parties
participated by providing evidence and testifying.