Marriage of Hawatmeh CA2/2

Filed 9/30/13 Marriage of Hawatmeh CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re Marriage of SAMI and GHADA B238518 HAWATMEH. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PD049175)

SAMI HAWATMEH,

Appellant,

v.

GHADA HAWATMEH,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Christine Byrd, Judge. Dismissed.

Leonard Chaitin for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent. ___________________________________________________

Appellant Sami Hawatmeh attempts to appeal from a postjudgment order which set a further hearing date on the status of two pieces of real property. Because the order was preliminary and interlocutory, we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Sami Hawatmeh (Sami) was married to Ghada Hawatmeh (Ghada) in 1990.1 In February 2010, Sami filed for divorce. Ghada failed to respond to the petition for dissolution of marriage, and in April 2010 default was entered. Sami filed a community and quasi-community property declaration listing a number of assets and debts. A default judgment was entered in September 2010, and Sami was allotted an assortment of assets and debts. In December 2010, Ghada filed a motion to set aside the judgment. She filed another motion to set aside the judgment in July 2011. The trial court heard these motions in November 2011. It denied both motions. The court found, however, that two pieces of real property were not identified in disclosures made by Sami and were not awarded in the judgment. Therefore, the court found that it had continuing jurisdiction over the properties pursuant to Family Code section 2556, and it set “the matter for trial with respect to these two properties.” The court stated that if Ghada identified any additional assets that had not been adjudicated, she could provide notice to Sami of the assets in advance of the trial. The court declared: “The issues to be tried are the characterization and division of any community interest in the identified properties (or in the proceeds from the sale of the properties), as well as any claims by Respondent of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with these properties.” The parties were ordered to engage in mediation, and the court ordered that trial be held on April 2 and 3, 2012. Sami appealed from the order.