Filed 8/12/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re Marriage of MANISHKUMAR and H045092, H045203, H046567 PRIYANKA ANKOLA. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 115-FL173072) MANISHKUMAR ANKOLA, Appellant, v. PRIYANKA ANKOLA, Respondent. Petitioner Manishkumar Ankola (Manish)1 and respondent Priyanka Ankola (Priyanka) met in August 2013, were married in June 2014, but ultimately the marriage was dissolved in September 2018. In these three appeals, Manish challenges certain orders entered by the trial court during the dissolution proceedings, as follows: 1. In H045092, Manish appeals from the trial court’s August 15, 2017 order granting respondent Priyanka’s request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) pursuant to Family Code section 6344,2 arguing that the order is not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed below, we conclude that the DVRO was supported by substantial evidence and will therefore affirm the order. 1 In his briefing, Mr. Ankola refers to himself by the abbreviated version of his first name, so we will do the same. 2 Unspecified statutory references are to the Family Code. 2. In H045203, Manish appeals from an October 5, 2017 order rescinding a prior award of attorney fees, entered on March 8, 2017, in his favor,3 arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the March 8, 2017 order or, alternatively, that the October 5, 2017 order rescinding it constituted an “unauthorized sanction” against him. We agree that the trial court erred in rescinding the prior order, but for reasons different than those advanced by Manish. Accordingly, we will reverse the October 5, 2017 order rescinding the prior award of attorney fees to Manish. 3. In H046567, Manish appeals from the judgment of dissolution, filed on November 29, 2018, arguing the trial court employed the incorrect standard of proof when it denied his petition for nullity by order dated October 31, 2016.4 As we explain, the trial court utilized the appropriate standard of proof in that hearing and we will therefore affirm the order denying Manish’s petition for nullity as well as the judgment of dissolution. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an effort to impose clarity on an otherwise confusing record of what has transpired below, we first briefly describe the procedural history leading up to each of the three appeals addressed herein. Detailed recitations of the evidence presented in the relevant hearings are provided in conjunction with the discussion of the issues raised in those individual appeals. On December 15, 2015, Manish filed a petition for nullity of his marriage to Priyanka, based on fraud. Priyanka’s response denied the allegations of Manish’s 3 The notice of appeal in H045203 indicates that Manish is appealing an order denying his motion to hold Priyanka in contempt and an order denying Manish’s application to sell property. However, Manish does not raise any arguments in his briefs relating to these orders and we consider the issues waived. “Courts will ordinarily treat the appellant’s failure to raise an issue in his or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals