Marriage of Silberberg CA5

Filed 9/23/25 Marriage of Silberberg CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of MARY and DARYL SILBERBERG.

MARY SILBERBERG, F087356

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RFL-19-000201)

v. OPINION DARYL SILBERBERG,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Kenneth G. Pritchard, Judge. Merritt L. McKeon for Appellant. Cage & Miles, John T. Sylvester, for Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION This is the second appeal arising from a marital dissolution action filed by Mary Silberberg (respondent) against Daryl Silberberg (appellant). On April 29, 2025, this court issued an opinion affirming the trial court following an appeal from the dissolution judgment. In this appeal, Daryl contends he should not be required to pay Mary attorney

fees to allow her to defend against the first appeal, because the trial court denied his ability to put on live testimony in connection with the attorney fee request concerning a purported inheritance Daryl believed Mary would receive following her father’s death. Setting aside the merits of this case, we note this is the second appeal Daryl has filed while refusing to comply with the trial court’s presumptively valid orders from which he appeals. Nor has Daryl taken any of the legal steps a litigant may take—such as posting an appeal bond or seeking discretionary relief from the trial court—which might stay the lower court’s order pending appeal. In the first appeal, we exercised our discretion to consider the merits of the appeal notwithstanding Daryl’s noncompliance. However, this conduct cannot be tolerated indefinitely. Considering all of the circumstances of this case, we conclude the doctrine of disentitlement bars Daryl from pursuing this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of Daryl’s arguments. BACKGROUND The full factual background of this case is set forth in our prior opinion In re Marriage of Daryl and Mary Silberberg (Silberberg I) (Apr. 29, 2025, F085618) [nonpub. opn.] 2025 WL 1232643 and is not repeated in full here. In Silberberg I, we considered an appeal from a judgment of dissolution, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full. During the pendency of that appeal, Mary sought a further award of $50,000 in attorney fees in the trial court pursuant to Family Code section 20301 in order to allow her to defend against the appeal. Daryl opposed this request, claiming he lacked the ability to pay a further order of attorney fees. Notably, however, although Daryl claimed his business income had declined precipitously, the tax return submitted by Daryl in connection with his opposition to this request showed an adjusted gross income of approximately $280,000, which was slightly higher than what the trial court had determined Daryl’s anticipated income to be in connection with the dissolution judgment.