Vera

Vera v. Haddad CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 2024B326699California3,436 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bendix, J.

BACKGROUND

Our appellate record contains documents regarding temporary spousal support, specifically Vera’s initial request, Haddad’s response, and Vera’s reply. The court also admitted the parties’ declarations but neither party testified. Both parties’ experts testified on direct and cross-examination. We summarize only those facts pertinent to the issues on appeal. According to Vera, she married Haddad in 2000 and they separated in 2022. Vera and Haddad have two children, currently adults. Child support, however, was not at issue. The parties agree that Haddad “owns and operates” CompSpec, which

2 provides computer systems to assist healthcare providers.1 Haddad started the business prior to marrying Vera. Because CompSpec is an S Corporation,2 its income is taxable as personal income. The parties own 10 residential properties, eight of which are rental properties. The parties also have income from other investments.

1. Vera’s request for spousal support On April 18, 2022, Vera filed a request for spousal support.3 Attached to her request for spousal support is an income and expense declaration, indicating that her monthly expenses were $75,901. Vera acknowledged this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.