Opinion
A150050
12-15-2017
LINDA HASKIN GOLOGORSKY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JONATHAN C. GOLOGORSKY, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. FAM0126331)
Appellant, identifying herself as "Gologorsky formerly known as: Linda Haskin Gologorsky aka Princess Leia Lucas Pro per," appeals from a judgment in this proceeding for dissolution of marriage. She asks this court "to overturn all rulings from, and since this trial, because they are basically, incorrect, not of legal authority, not according to De Novo standards, beyond the discretion of the court, too harmful, and, for all of the other reasons explained [in her opening brief]." We will affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The parties were allegedly married in January 1995. Appellant filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage in August 2014. The parties have one adult daughter.
At a trial before the court, appellant questioned whether she was ever married to respondent because the marriage license contained mistakes and she could not find a record of the rabbi. She also claimed, among other things, that although she allegedly wed respondent in January 1995, she was already married "in [her] second identity" of Princess Leia Lucas to George Walton Lucas, Jr., at the time. Mr. Lucas was not called as a witness.
After the conclusion of the trial, the court issued a statement of decision finding that all of the exhibits presented by appellant - including purported deeds respecting the parties' residence - were "clearly altered" and fraudulent, and that appellant's testimony was "not to be trusted" and appellant had "no credibility whatsoever." The court directed that appellant vacate the family residence, appointed a special master to sell the residence, and made orders with respect to other property and assets. The court further ordered appellant to reimburse respondent for certain amounts from her share of the sale proceeds of the residence. Based on factors set forth in Family Law Code section 4320, the court ordered respondent to pay appellant spousal support of $3,000 per month until respondent reaches the age of 65. Finding among other things that appellant lacked credibility, her responses to discovery requests were in bad faith, she attached a fraudulent deed to verified discovery responses, she violated automatic temporary restraining orders, she disparaged the parties' real property, and she "continuously frustrated the policy of cooperation in litigation," the court ordered appellant to pay $58,683 in sanctions to respondent pursuant to Family Law Code section 271, to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the family residence.
The court entered judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
We have considered appellant's 128-page opening brief, respondent's brief, and appellant's 45-page reply brief, as well as the appellate record. We have also considered the arguments made at oral argument. We disregard any factual assertions to the extent the parties have failed to provide a supporting citation to the record or supporting legal authority. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1); McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.)
Appellant has not demonstrated that the trial court made an error of law, that its findings lacked the support of substantial evidence, or that the court committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Because appellant has not demonstrated any substantial issue of law or fact, we resolve the appeal by an abbreviated form of opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854.)
On May 30, 2017, respondent moved to dismiss the appeal and award attorney fees and sanctions against appellant. We deferred our ruling until a decision on the merits. The motion is now denied. --------
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
SIMONS, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
BRUINIERS, J.