Proppe v. Costello CA1/3

── Proppe v. Costello CA1/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/16/26 Proppe v. Costello CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE COLLEEN M. PROPPÉ, Plaintiff and Appellant, A171896 v. (Marin County Super. Ct. BRIAN T. COSTELLO, No. FL 0000854) Defendant and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2024, Colleen M. Proppé asked the trial court to order Brian T. Costello to pay spousal or domestic partner support.1 The court denied her request, concluding it had no jurisdiction to do so because the parties were neither married nor registered domestic partners. Proppé appeals. As she identifies no legal basis that would allow the court to award spousal or domestic partner support, we affirm. The relevant facts are undisputed. The parties had a relationship that resulted in the birth of two now-adult children. The parties were never 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1), reciting only those facts necessary to resolve the limited issue before us. We disregard facts that do not appear in the record on appeal as well as arguments based on such facts. (Pulver v. Avco Financial Services (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 632.) 1 married. They filed a domestic partnership agreement in Marin County in 2002, but they never filed a declaration of domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State.2 A trial court may award spousal support upon the dissolution of a marriage or legal separation of the married parties. (Fam. Code, § 4330, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to this code.) And it may award domestic partner support upon the dissolution of a registered domestic partnership or legal separation of registered domestic partners. (§ 299.) To establish a domestic partnership in California, both parties must “file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State.” (§ 297, subd. (b).) Registering with a city or county — without filing a declaration with the Secretary of State — is insufficient to create a domestic partnership under state law. (Velez v. Smith (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1167 (Velez).) Given the undisputed facts and relevant law, the trial court correctly determined it could not award spousal or domestic partner support. We briefly address Proppé’s contrary arguments and find them unavailing. She notes the Legislature added section 297.5 to give registered domestic partners the same rights, protections, and benefits as spouses, and she contends that change should apply retroactively to the parties’ 2002 2 On November 10, 2025, Proppé filed a motion to augment the record with various documents, including (1) a reporter’s transcript of a hearing that occurred after the hearing at issue in this appeal; (2) a domestic violence restraining order packet; (3) Costello’s income and expense declaration; and (4) a reporter’s transcript of the hearing at issue here. We deny as irrelevant the motion as to the first three documents. And we deny as to the fourth document because Proppé indicated in her amended notice designating the record on appeal that she would be using a settled statement because the “proceedings . . . were not reported by a court reporter.” Even if it existed, any transcript w