Marriage of Yu CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Aug 27, 2024 No. G063188Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's postjudgment order regarding the temporary judge's jurisdiction was nonappealable because it was preparatory to further proceedings and did not finally adjudicate the parties' rights.

Issues

Whether a postjudgment order confirming a temporary judge's jurisdiction to preside over remaining issues is an appealable order.
Whether the court should exercise its discretion to treat a nonappealable appeal as a petition for writ of mandate.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider the challenges made by Carolyne Yu (Tsai) to a nonappealable postjudgment order.”

“The 2023 RFOs thus were “preparatory to later proceedings” (Lakin, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 653) and nonappealable.”

“we conclude this case does not present “unusual circumstances” justifying treatment of this appeal as a writ petition.”

Filed 8/27/24 Marriage of Yu CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of DAVID and CAROLYNE YU.

DAVID YU, G063188 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 99D005154) v. OPINION CAROLYNE YU,

Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julie A. Palafox, Judge. Dismissed. Motion to augment denied. Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall, Lisa R. McCall and Erica M. Barbero for Appellant.

Law Offices of Lemkin, Barnes & Row, Wm. Curtis Barnes, Jr., and Cheryl Anne Row for Respondent. * * * In this purported appeal, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider the challenges made by Carolyne Yu (Tsai) to a nonappealable postjudgment order. (See Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 651–652 (Lakin) [listing factors to determine appealability of postjudgment orders]; In re Marriage of Olson (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1462 (Marriage of Olson) [applying Lakin to postjudgment orders in divorce cases].) Although we have the power to treat a faulty appeal as a petition for writ of mandate (Marriage of Olson, at p. 1462), we decline to exercise it here because the circumstances are not sufficiently “unusual” to warrant it (Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 401 (Olson)). For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.1 FACTS Many years after their divorce, Tsai and David Yu returned to court to dispute the division of company stock held as community property, among other issues. The parties stipulated to a private temporary judge, who would preside over submitted issues “until the conclusion . . . or December 31, 2021 [(the stipulated deadline)], whichever occurs first.” On January 10, 2023, which was well after the stipulated deadline, the temporary judge issued a tentative ruling adverse to Tsai on the first of 17 submitted issues. A month later, Tsai filed a request for order (RFO) asking the trial court to find the temporary judge’s appointment had expired over a year

Marriage of Yu CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DELANEY, J.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

AI Brief