Marriage of Solorzano and Preciado CA4/1

Filed 11/22/24 Marriage of Solorzano and Preciado CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of ANGELA SOLORZANO and ERIC PRECIADO. D084262 ANGELA SOLORZANO,

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FLHE2204622)

v.

ERIC PRECIADO,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside, Johnnetta E. Anderson, Judge. Affirmed.

Eric Preciado, in pro. per.; and Westover Law Group and Taryn B. La Fata for Appellant. Law Offices of Edgar & Dow and Harold William Edgar for Respondent. On August 2, 2022, Angela Solorzano (Wife), her attorney, and Eric Preciado (Husband) (proceeding pro. per.) signed a stipulated agreement

wherein Husband and Wife acknowledged they had separated and agreed to have the dissolution of their marriage heard as an uncontested matter. Ten days later, Wife filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage. Over five months later, Husband retained legal counsel. A judgment of dissolution, which incorporated the stipulated agreement, was ultimately entered on May 5, 2023. On appeal, Husband asserts that the court erred in entering an uncontested judgment that did not comport with two California Rules of Court. He requests that we vacate the judgment because his attorney did not sign the stipulated agreement and the judge made interlineations on Wife’s Declaration for Default or Uncontested Dissolution and processed the matter as an uncontested judgment. Wife contends Husband waived his right to appeal in the stipulated agreement. Regardless, she argues substantial evidence supports the judgment and highlights that Husband failed to demonstrate any prejudice. We conclude Husband has not demonstrated error or prejudice and, therefore, affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Husband and Wife married in June 2011 and separated in May 2022. They have four minor children together. In the August 2, 2022 stipulated agreement, they approved custody and visitation terms related to the children. In lieu of Husband paying child support payments, they agreed Husband would transfer his interest in the family home to Wife and pay the mortgage payments on the property for 16 years, at which point their youngest daughter would be 18 years old. They further stated: “The parties have stipulated this matter be heard as an uncontested matter, and both parties waive their rights to a trial, a