Marriage of Talaich CA6

Filed 11/4/25 Marriage of Talaich CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of ANTHONY and H052896 SONJA TALAICH. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 17FL004083)

ANTHONY TALAICH,

Appellant,

v.

SONJA TALAICH,

Respondent.

The nature of family law proceedings can sometimes “make the case resemble an unruly desert caravan strung out upon the sands.” (In re Marriage of Schaffer (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 801, 808 (Schaffer).) This case is no exception. This dissolution action began in 2017. A year later, the trial court bifurcated the issue of marital status and entered a status-only judgment dissolving the marriage between appellant Anthony Talaich and respondent Sonja Talaich, while reserving jurisdiction over all other issues. Since then, the parties have engaged in extensive litigation, resulting in multiple orders—and subsequent modifications—concerning custody, child and spousal support, property division, attorney fees, and enforcement. After years of litigation, however, the trial court has yet to enter a final judgment on the reserved issues in this case, as originally contemplated by the parties. In the

absence of such a judgment, Mr. Talaich appealed from an order enforcing the parties’ prior stipulations regarding the division of their former marital residence. Because the order is a nonappealable interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2018, based on the parties’ agreement, the court entered the judgment terminating their marital status. The status-only judgment adjudicated only the issue of marital status. In February 2024, the court entered an order based on the parties’ agreement relating to the division of certain real properties, including the former marital residence, and attorney fees. The stipulated order provided that the parties’ agreement “shall be considered a stipulated judgment on all outstanding issues,” and “the parties shall cooperate to incorporate this agreement into a judgment on reserved issues.” A few months later, in May 2024, to resolve the parties’ dueling requests for sanctions against each other, the parties entered into another stipulated order to “clarify the terms of that [February 2024] Order.” The order further clarified the liens that were to be assumed by Mr. Talaich in relation to the former marital residence, which included the underlying debt relating to those liens. However, the parties continued to disagree over the terms of the stipulated orders, ultimately resulting in Ms. Talaich’s filing of a request for order to compel Mr. Talaich’s compliance with the orders. In October 2024, after the hearing on Ms. Talaich’s request, the trial court ordered Mr. Talaich to pay her $50,000 owed to her “pursuant to the [stipulated] orders filed[,]” and ordered him to “immediately remove [Ms. Talaich] from all mortgages” on the parties’ former family residence. The court filed its written findings and order after hearing on November 14, 2024. Mr. Talaich timely appeals from the November 14, 2024 order.