Filed 11/18/22 Marriage of Manyere CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

In re Marriage of BRILLIANT

and ANGELA RENEE 

MANYERE.

 B313598

BRILLIANT MANYERE,

Appellant,

v.

ANGELA RENEE MANYERE,

Respondent.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20LBFL01308)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Carla L. Garrett, Judge. Affirmed.

Brilliant Manyere, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.
2

Brilliant Manyere appeals from a family court order

awarding his spouse, Angela Manyere, $2,163 per month in 

pendente lite (temporary) spousal support. Brilliant1 contends 

Angela misrepresented the circumstances of their separation and 

the family court failed to consider Angela’s ability to access 

Brilliant’s deferred compensation plan savings in calculating 

temporary spousal support. We affirm.

 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Petition for Dissolution and Request for Order of Support2

Brilliant and Angela married on April 13, 1984; they 

separated in April 2010; and Brilliant filed a petition for 

dissolution on December 31, 2010. They have two adult children. 

Since 1986 Brilliant has worked for the County of Los Angeles 

(County) as a property assessor. Angela worked as a deputy 

probation officer from 1998 to 2003, when she was diagnosed 

with cancer, and thereafter she was a stay-at-home parent. After 

1 We refer to the parties by their first names because they 

share a last name.

2 The background facts are taken from Angela’s declaration 

in support of her request for order awarding temporary spousal 

support and from Brilliant’s responsive declaration. On our own 

motion, we augment the record to include Brilliant’s

December 31, 2020 petition for dissolution and income and 

expense declaration; Angela’s February 16, 2021 request for order 

awarding temporary spousal support, attorneys’ fees, and costs,

and her income and expense declaration; Brilliant’s March 30, 

2021 responsive declaration and income and expense declaration;

and Brilliant’s April 7, 2021 income and expense declaration.
3

the parties’ separation in 2010, Angela moved to Texas, where 

she presently lives with her parents and works as a teacher’s 

aide.

On February 16, 2021 Angela filed a request for order 

(RFO) seeking $2,400 in monthly temporary spousal support and 

$4,000 in attorneys’ fees. In her attached income and expense 

declaration, Angela, then 56 years old, stated she earned $1,368 

per month working 40 hours per week as a teacher’s aide, and 

she claimed monthly expenses of $3,525, including $1,200 in rent. 

Angela estimated Brilliant’s monthly income was $12,533 based 

on his December 31, 2020 income and expense declaration filed 

with the petition for dissolution. 

Angela averred in her declaration in support of the RFO 

that she suffered mental and physical abuse during the marriage, 

and she fled the home with her daughter in April 2010 after a

heated argument with Brilliant. Brilliant cut off Angela’s access 

to the family finances and refused to support her, forcing her to 

move in with her parents in Texas. However, because her 

parents were “getting older,” Angela wanted to have her own 

residence to secure her financial future without relying on her 

parents’ assistance. Angela stated she lived a middle- to highincome lifestyle during the marriage, including extensive travel, 

shopping, and dining out, and she and Brilliant owned their 

home. She submitted a DissoMaster3 report that calculated 

monthly guideline spousal support at $2,894 per month based on 

3 DissoMaster is a computer software program widely used 

by courts and the family law bar in setting child and spousal 

support pursuant to the statewide uniform guidelines set by the 

Family Code and local rules. (See In re Marriage of Olson (1993) 

14 Cal.App.4th 1, 5, & fn. 3.)
4

the parties’ respective incomes. Angela requested $2,400 per 

month based on the report, which she asserted was “reasonable”

under the circumstances.

On March 30, 2021 Brilliant filed a responsive declaration 

requesting the family court deny the RFO. Brilliant stated he 

should not be responsible for supporting Angela because during 

their 11 years of separation Angela chose to rely on her parents 

for support and did not pursue a remunerative career of her own, 

even though she is a college graduate with previous work 

experience as a probation officer, eligibility worker, and child 

support representative for the County. Brilliant averred that 

Angela “drained me financially upon our separation” by staying 

in hotels for an extended period and withdrawing $6,000 from the 

couple’s joint account, and Angela did not provide any support for 

Brilliant or their children during their years of separation.

4 

Angela’s excessive spending caused Brilliant to remove Angela 

from the joint account. Unable to pay his bills, Brilliant filed for 

bankruptcy in 2012. Brilliant asserted further, “Division of my 

deferred compensation from this dissolution will provide [Angela] 

with sufficient support. She will be granted half of the 

contributions made when were together from 1990-2010.” 

Moreover, “the support [Angela] receives from her parents should 

be the source for her attorney’s fees.”

On March 30, 2021 Brilliant filed an income and expense 

declaration stating his gross pre-tax pay was $12,558 per month, 

4 Brilliant and Angela’s daughter was approximately

14 years old at the time of the 2010 separation. According to 

Angela, although their daughter initially left the family home 

with Angela, she did not move with Angela to Texas because she 

was enrolled in school in California.
5

but his average monthly income was $8,709.5 He listed 

approximately $28,800 in assets and $10,028 in monthly 

expenses, including $1,277 for home loan payments and $2,000 in 

“savings and investments.” He submitted pay stubs showing his 

gross monthly pay was approximately $16,100 in January 2021

and $13,000 in February 2021. His monthly contribution to his 

deferred compensation retirement plan was approximately 

$2,900 in January and $2,600 in February.

B. Hearing on the RFO

The family court heard the RFO on April 12, 2021. Both 

parties were present in court and represented by counsel. After 

the court summarized the parties’ declarations, Angela’s attorney 

argued that Brilliant’s declaration failed to address Angela’s 

assertions of domestic violence and the marital standard of living, 

and Angela’s support request was very modest in seeking only 

$1,200 for monthly rent, $400 for food, and limited additional 

amounts to travel to California to visit her children and 

grandchildren. Moreover, Brilliant’s income and expense 

declaration showed he was able to pay spousal support in light of 

his $2,000 in monthly investments and savings “in addition to 

what they take out for his deferred compensation and his 

retirement.” Angela’s attorney argued further, “For [Brilliant] to 

state [Angela] can use the deferred compensation, her half, he 

has the same half, if not more, and she’s only 56 years of age. 

5 On April 7, 2021 Brilliant filed an updated income and 

expense declaration stating he had an average monthly income of 

$9,669, comprised of his salary and overtime. The declaration 

was otherwise unchanged from the March 30 declaration.
6

She cannot go into the retirement account until she’s 59 and a 

half. That’s not even an option at this point.”

Brilliant’s attorney argued Angela should receive “little if 

any” temporary spousal support because she had abandoned 

Brilliant to raise their children, she was supported by her 

parents, she gave up her job without presenting medical evidence 

of her inability to work, and the cost of living was lower in Texas

than California. 

After hearing argument, the family court announced it had 

prepared a DissoMaster report “just based on the income and 

expense declaration[s] that both parties provided.” The guideline 

monthly spousal support generated by the DissoMaster was 

$1,671 based on Brilliant’s declaration that he earned “$8,709 per 

month gross.” Angela’s attorney argued the calculation was 

inaccurate because Brilliant stated in his December 31, 2020 

income and expense declaration that he earned $12,558 per 

month. Asked to address the discrepancy, Brilliant’s attorney 

explained that Brilliant’s “pay from the County is quite 

complicated to figure out,” and Brilliant actually earned $9,153 

per month before taxes. Angela’s attorney responded that 

Brilliant’s pay stubs indicated his gross pay was significantly 

higher. The court and the attorneys began a fruitless effort to 

attempt to decipher Brilliant’s County pay stubs, but eventually 

the court called a recess and directed the parties “to see if you can 

figure out where you are, what the numbers look like, then we 

can have a discussion.” 

After the recess, Brilliant and Angela jointly submitted a 

DissoMaster report that used Brilliant’s IRS Form W-2 income 

for 2020 instead of his pay stubs to calculate his monthly income. 

Brilliant’s and Angela’s attorneys confirmed they prepared the 
7

report together. In the “Input Data” field, the report listed 

Brilliant’s monthly wage and salary income as $9,669 and 

Angela’s monthly income as $1,367. The parties did not itemize 

any 401(k) or other deferred compensation contributions, or other

deductions or adjustments to their monthly income, except for 

minor entries reflecting Brilliant’s union dues ($84), Angela’s 

health insurance ($133), and Angela’s mandatory retirement

contributions ($27). Based on these inputs, the DissoMaster 

calculated guideline support of $2,163 per month for Angela.

After receiving the DissoMaster report, the family court

stated, “I’m glad you guys got together and came up with some 

numbers. Now, I understand the concerns. . . . I understand 

there [are] some issues regarding how long you two have been 

separated, Sir, and the issues that you have regarding paying 

any temporary spousal support. . . . However, . . . the court is 

going to grant temporary spousal support in this case. And I’m 

going to base that on the report that the parties have just 

provided that suggests that the guideline support is $2,163 per 

month.” The court denied Angela’s request for retroactive 

support and ordered payments to commence in two monthly 

installments beginning May 12, 2021. The court also awarded 

Angela $4,000 in attorneys’ fees after finding “there is a 

disparity, . . . there is an ability on [Brilliant] to pay, and . . . 

there is a need.” On May 7, 2021 the court entered the findings 

and order after hearing setting forth the terms of Brilliant’s 

monthly spousal support and attorneys’ fees payment, and 

attaching the final DissoMaster report.
8

Brilliant timely appealed.6

DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

Under Family Code section 3600,7 a family court may order 

temporary spousal support in “any amount that is necessary for 

the support of the other spouse,” as long as the amount is 

consistent with section 4320 (listing circumstances to consider in 

ordering support) and section 4325 (limiting spousal support 

awards to a spouse convicted of domestic violence). “The purpose 

of pendente lite spousal support is to maintain the parties’

standards of living in as close as possible to the preseparation 

status quo, pending trial. In fixing temporary spousal support, 

trial courts are not restricted by any set of statutory guidelines.” 

(In re Marriage of Ciprari (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 83, 103-104;

accord, In re Marriage of Brewster & Clevenger (2020) 

45 Cal.App.5th 481, 514; In re Marriage of Samson (2011) 

197 Cal.App.4th 23, 29.) “‘[I]n exercising its broad discretion, the 

court may properly consider the “big picture” concerning the 

parties’ assets and income available for support in light of the 

6 Brilliant does not assert any arguments regarding the

attorneys’ fees award, thereby forfeiting any challenge to the fee

award on appeal. (See Tiernan v. Trustees of Cal. State 

University & Colleges (1982) 33 Cal.3d 211, 216, fn. 4 [issue not 

raised on appeal deemed waived]; Eck v. City of Los Angeles

(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 141, 146 [appellant forfeited or abandoned 

issue not raised in appellate briefs].)

7 All further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Family Code.
9

marriage standard of living.’” (Marriage of Lim & Carrasco

(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 768, 773; accord, In re Marriage of 

Wittgrove (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1327.)

We review an order for temporary spousal support for an 

abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Ciprari, supra,

32 Cal.App.5th at p. 104 [“[t]he amount of the award lies within 

the trial court’s sound discretion, and is reversible only on a 

showing of clear abuse of discretion”]; In re Marriage of Lim & 

Carrasco, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 773.) “Under this 

standard, we consider only ‘whether the court’s factual 

determinations are supported by substantial evidence and 

whether the court acted reasonably in exercising its discretion.’ 

[Citation.] ‘We do not substitute our own judgment for that of the 

trial court, but confine ourselves to determining whether any 

judge could have reasonably made the challenged order.’” (In re 

Marriage of Macilwaine (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 514, 527; accord, 

In re Marriage of Smith (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 529, 532 [a 

support order “‘will be overturned only if, considering all the 

evidence viewed most favorably in support of its order, no judge 

could reasonably make the order made’”].) “On review for 

substantial evidence, we examine the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party and give that party the benefit 

of every reasonable inference. [Citation.] We accept all evidence 

favorable to the prevailing party as true and discard contrary 

evidence.” (In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 

1151; accord, In re Marriage of Nakamoto & Hsu (2022) 

79 Cal.App.5th 457, 470.)
10

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Family Court’s Order for 

Temporary Spousal Support

The family court based its order for $2,163 per month in

temporary spousal support entirely on the guideline support set 

forth in the DissoMaster report jointly submitted by the parties 

during the hearing on the RFO. The income inputs used to 

generate the guideline support were agreed upon by the parties. 

Further, the inputs are supported by substantial evidence. 

Brilliant’s income input ($9,669) was based on Brilliant’s 2020 

IRS Form W-2, and it also matched the gross average monthly 

income that Brilliant stated in his April 7, 2021 income and 

expense declaration. Angela’s income input ($1,367) matched the 

gross monthly income set forth in her February 16, 2021 income 

and expense declaration. Further, Angela attested in her 

declaration in support of the RFO that she enjoyed a middle- to 

high-income lifestyle prior to separation, she was now working 40 

hours per week as a teacher’s aide, and although her parents 

supported her during the separation, they were getting older and 

she could not rely on them to continue supporting her financially. 

Based on this evidence, the court did not abuse its broad

discretion in ordering guideline support that was “based on the 

supported spouse’s needs and the other spouse’s ability to pay.” 

(In re Marriage of Samson, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 29.) 

Brilliant contends the family court erred in issuing the 

support order because Angela misled the court into believing she 

was forced out of the marital home in 2010, although she left of 

her own free will. He argues further that Angela lied to the court 

about Brilliant cutting off her access to the parties’ finances,

when Angela in fact “plundered” their bank accounts and maxed 
11

out their credit cards, driving Brilliant into bankruptcy.

8 He also 

argues that Angela’s claims of spousal abuse were 

uncorroborated.9

However even if any of Brilliant’s contentions had merit 

(which is not clear from the record), these asserted facts are not 

relevant to the appeal because the family court made no findings 

8 Brilliant’s opening brief includes numerous allegations 

regarding Angela’s 2010 departure and financial misconduct that 

are not reflected in the record, even as augmented. It is 

appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error by the 

lower court, and “‘[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an 

issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].’” 

(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) Moreover, when an 

appellant “‘“fails to support [a point] with reasoned argument and 

citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.”’” (Shenefield 

v. Shenefield (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 619, 641; accord, Vines v. 

O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 174, 190.) 

We recognize Brilliant is self-represented and his understanding 

of the rules on appeal is, as a practical matter, more limited than 

an experienced appellate attorney’s, and whenever possible, we 

do not strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner 

that deprives a self-represented litigant of a hearing. But we are 

required to apply the rules on appeal and the substantive rules of 

law to the litigant’s claims on appeal, just as we would to those 

litigants who are represented by trained legal counsel. 

(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

9 Brilliant asserts that at the hearing on the RFO “he raised 

his hand and wished to address the Court regarding the abuse 

allegations, but the trial court declined to listen to [him].” The 

reporter’s transcript does not reflect that the trial court 

prevented Brilliant from speaking, and both Brilliant and his 

attorney addressed the court multiple times during the hearing.
12

regarding the parties’ 2010 separation or Angela’s use of joint 

funds, and it did not base its award of temporary spousal support 

on anything other than the parties’ income and expenses. As 

discussed, the court at the hearing summarized both parties’ 

allegations concerning the 2010 separation, then announced it 

had prepared a DissoMaster report “just based on the income and 

expense declaration that both parties provided.” And in making 

its award of temporary spousal support, the court adopted the 

parties’ joint DissoMaster report without making any 

adjustments based on either party’s allegations.

Brilliant also contends the family court overlooked his 

deferred compensation plan in determining the amount of money 

Angela needed for support. He argues Angela’s community share 

of these retirement funds would have provided her with a 

substantially better standard of living than she enjoyed prior to 

separation, and the court could have enabled Angela to access her 

share of the funds through a qualified domestic relations order.10

Brilliant also argues Angela’s attorney misled the court into 

believing Brilliant had sufficient money to pay spousal support by 

stating Brilliant had $2,000 in monthly savings “in addition to 

what they take out for his deferred compensation and his 

10 Brilliant points to Los Angeles County Code

section 5.25.125, which he asserts provides for early distribution 

of retirement funds pursuant to a qualified domestic relations 

order. We do not reach whether Angela could have accessed her 

share of Brilliant’s deferred compensation plan funds because, as 

discussed below, Brilliant waived any challenge to the income

attributed to him in the negotiated DissoMaster report used by 

the family court in calculating temporary spousal support.
13

retirement,” when in fact his reported savings included his 

retirement contributions.

These arguments are unavailing. First, neither party 

asked the family court to enter a qualified domestic relations 

order piercing Brilliant’s retirement account, and in any event, as 

Angela’s attorney observed, even if Angela could access Brilliant’s

deferred compensation plan as a source of income, arguably

Brilliant could as well, thereby affecting his available funds. 

Most significantly, Brilliant waived any challenge to the income 

attributed to him in calculating temporary spousal support by 

reaching an agreement with Angela on the inputs to the 

DissoMaster report the parties jointly submitted to the court.

Brilliant’s attorney confirmed to the court that the joint 

DissoMaster report reflected the parties’ agreement on the 

income figures. Brilliant has therefore waived any challenge to 

the income available for support. (See In re Marriage of 

Lionberger (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 56, 60-62 [after parties 

stipulated to spousal support, wife who raised no objection when 

the trial court and counsel discussed the amount and termination 

date of support payments impliedly waived her right to challenge 

the termination date on appeal]; see also In re Marriage of 

Freeman (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1450-1451 [where the 

parties entered a stipulated judgment embodying the trial court’s 

earlier determination the husband was not sterile and a blood 

test would not be ordered, husband waived his right to contend 

on appeal that he was denied due process without a blood test].)11

11 Further, although Brilliant’s IRS Form W-2 is not in the 

record, the $9,669 monthly income extrapolated from the Form 

W-2 and entered into the DissoMaster appears to have excluded 
14

DISPOSITION

The family court’s May 7, 2021 order for temporary spousal 

support is affirmed. Brilliant is to bear his own costs on appeal.

FEUER, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

Brilliant’s deferred compensation contributions given that 

Brilliant’s monthly pre-tax gross earnings on his January and 

February 2021 pay stubs exceeded $9,669 by several thousand 

dollars, and his December 31, 2020 income and expense 

declaration likewise listed his monthly pre-tax gross income as

$12,533.