Marriage of Cutrer CA4/3

Filed 2/5/25 Marriage of Cutrer 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 the Marriage of GOLRIZEH and MARK EDWARD CUTRER.

GOLRIZEH CUTRER, G063855 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 21D000524) v. OPINION MARK EDWARD CUTRER,

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carmen R. Luege, Judge. Affirmed. Golrizeh Cutrer, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Appellant Golrizeh Cutrer appeals from the trial court’s denial of her request for an order setting aside the marital settlement agreement (MSA) signed by her and her former spouse, respondent Mark Edward 1 Cutrer. The court held Golrizeh could not challenge the MSA because it had merged into the judgment. The court noted Golrizeh’s only possible relief was to set aside the judgment—a motion that was not before the court. Even assuming Golrizeh had filed a motion to vacate the judgment, the court articulated various reasons why it would deny the motion. On appeal, Golrizeh contends the MSA should be set aside because it was the product of fraud, duress, undue influence, and coercion. She also requests we “execute [a] wage assignment order . . . for spousal support.” We conclude Golrizeh has not met her burden of showing any error. We therefore affirm the order. 2 FACTS In February 2021, Golrizeh filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In July 2021, the court entered judgment terminating the parties’ marital status and reserving jurisdiction on all other issues.

1 As is customary where the parties share a surname, we refer to them by their first names for ease of reading and clarity.