Marriage of Haile CA1/1

Filed 7/22/25 Marriage of Haile CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of EDEN and TSEGAI HAILE EDEN HAILE, Respondent, A171590, A171891, & A171979 v. TSEGAI HAILE, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SFL-090902) Appellant.

In these consolidated appeals, appellant Tsegai Haile challenges three separate orders entered in the dissolution proceedings initiated by his wife, respondent Eden Haile.1 Because he raises no reasoned factual or legal arguments of how the trial court erred, we affirm all three orders. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Tsegai and Eden were married in January 1996 and have three children. Eden filed a divorce petition in April 2022. Around a year later, in April 2023, Tsegai purported to appeal from several orders entered in the action. In an unpublished opinion, this court concluded that Tsegai had

1 We refer to the parties by their first names in the interest of clarity.

1

mostly appealed from nonappealable orders, and that to the extent one of the orders was appealable, Tsegai offered no reasoned argument why it should be reversed. (Haile v. Haile (Oct. 26, 2023, A167562) (Haile I).) Litigation continued in the trial court. Among the many things the parties disputed was their date of separation. Tsegai claimed that the parties separated in March 2002 (i.e., around 20 years before Eden filed a divorce petition), when Eden was pregnant with the couple’s third child. Eden, by contrast, contended the separation date was in April 2022. Tsegai’s legal representation has changed several times. He is currently unrepresented. He challenges the following three orders issued by the trial court. A. Denial of Claim of Exemption. In May 2022, the court ordered Tsegai to pay $5,000 in attorney fees and $500 in other payments. Apparently he did not pay. Tsegai also was directed to pay Eden money in orders filed in August 2022, December 2022, and March 2023. Eden ultimately obtained a writ of execution for the enforcement of a money judgment totaling $8,987.50. In January 2024, $5,570.24 was withdrawn from Tsegai’s account with Redwood Credit Union to pay a “Sheriff’s Department levy.” Tsegai filed a claim of exemption under title 42 United States Code section 407(a), which exempts Social Security income from garnishment. Eden opposed the claim. She contended that Tsegai’s equity was greater than what he had listed on a financial statement. In response to Eden’s opposition to his claim of exemption, Tsegai first filed a declaration complaining about almost every aspect of the proceedings. As for his claim of exemption, he characterized Eden’s opposition as “frivolous” and asserted that he was “not a judgment debtor in this case, I