California Court of Appeal Feb 5, 2026 No. E084112Unpublished
Filed 2/5/26 Marriage of Gilbert CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re the Marriage of MAURICE AND ISABEL GILBERT.
MAURICE GILBERT, E084112 Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. FAMSB2200803) v. OPINION ISABEL BARRIOS GILBERT et al.,
Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Carlos M.
Cabrera, Judge. Affirmed.
Maurice Gilbert, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent Isabel Barrios Gilbert.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General,
Maureen C. Onyeagbako and Grant Lien, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent
California Department of Child Support Services.
1
This opinion constitutes this court’s fifth time addressing this child support
matter. (In re Marriage of Gilbert (July 9, 2019, E070292) [nonpub. opn.]; In re
Marriage of Gilbert (Nov. 19, 2019, E071428) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Marriage of
Gilbert (Nov. 13, 2023, E077917) [nonpub. opn.]; In re Marriage of Gilbert (May 14,
2025, E082826) (modified June 12, 2025) [nonpub. opn.] (the fourth appeal).) In the
current appeal, among other contentions, appellant Maurice Gilbert (Father) asserts the
family court erred by issuing an order, while the fourth appeal was pending, that
concerned the order under review in the fourth appeal. We affirm.
FACTS
In the fourth appeal we reviewed an order issued by the family court on
September 14, 2023 (the September order). In the September order, the family court
corrected an error in a 2014 order to clarify that Father was the parent ordered to pay
child support—not respondent Isabel Barrios-Gilbert (Mother). Father filed a notice of
appeal for the fourth appeal on December 15, 2023. In the fourth appeal, Father
asserted the family court erred by correcting the 2014 order. (In re Marriage of Gilbert
(May 14, 2025, E082826) (modified June 12, 2025) [nonpub. opn.] at pp. 6-8.)
On December 18, 2023, the family court determined that Mother did not owe
child support arrears, while Father owed child support arrears of $26,523.44
($13,583.04 is principal and $12,940.40 is interest). The family court ordered Father to
pay the arrears “at a rate of $500.00 every month to be paid on the 1st day of each
month commencing 01/01/24.”
2
DISCUSSION
A. JURISDICTION DURING THE FOURTH APPEAL
Father contends the family court lacked jurisdiction to enter the December 18,
2023, order while the fourth appeal was pending. Respondent California Department of
Child Support Services (the Department) concedes that Father is correct. We conclude
the family court did not err.
“[T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the
judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected
thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 916.)
However, “[u]nless an undertaking is given, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay
enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order is for . . .
[¶] [m]oney or the payment of money.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1, subd. (a)(1).) “Such
an undertaking has been required in dissolution proceedings pending the appeal of
support orders.” (In re Marriage of Thompson (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 621, 625.) The
purpose of the rule staying proceedings is to “ ‘ “preserv[e] the status quo until the
appeal is decided.” ’ ” (Royals v. Lu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 328, 343.)
The family court’s December 18, 2023, order did not alter the status quo. Rather,
it enforced the clarified 2014 child support order designating Father as the parent
required to pay support. It enforced the 2014 order by setting a payment schedule and
an amount owed. Moreover, the law recognizes the payment of arrears as enforcement
of a judgment. Family Code section 4503 provides, “If a parent has been ordered to
make payments for the support of a minor child, an action to recover an arrearage in
3
those payments may be maintained at any time within the period otherwise specified for
the enforcement of such a judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the child has attained
the age of 18 years.” (Italics added.) Father does not assert that he posted an
undertaking for the fourth appeal. Without an undertaking, the family court retained
jurisdiction to enforce the payment of arrears. In sum, the family court did not err.
The Department cites two cases to support its concession that the family court
erred. The first case is Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625. In that case, the
plaintiff filed a personal injury action, and the trial court entered a default judgment
against the defendants. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion to vacate the
judgment, and the defendants appealed. While that appeal was pending, more motions
were filed and ruled upon. (Id. at p. 628.) An order denying a motion to vacate is not
an order for the payment of money. Therefore, the Department’s reliance on Elsea is
misplaced.
The second case is Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th
180. In that case, the Supreme Court considered “whether the perfecting of an appeal
from the denial of a special motion to strike[, i.e., an anti-SLAPP motion] automatically
stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected
by the motion.” (Id. at p. 186.) The denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is not an order for
the payment of money. Accordingly, the Department’s reliance on Varian is also
misplaced.
4
B. DUE PROCESS
Father contends the family court violated his right of due process by entering the
arrears order sua sponte and without notice.
On May 19, 2023, the Department filed a motion to correct the 2014 order. On
August 14, 2023, Mother filed a request for a determination of arrears. On September
14, 2023, the family court ordered the 2014 order corrected to clarify that Father was
the parent required to pay child support. In that same order, the family court continued
“[t]he issue of determination of child support arrears . . . to 10/30/2023 at 10am in Dept.
S51.” On October 20, 2023, the Department filed a request for a determination of
arrears and the setting of a payment schedule for Father. The Department also provided
an accounting of the arrears owed by Father. The family court reset the hearing for
December 18, 2023.
On December 14, 2023, Father filed a response, in which he asserted, “[Mother
and the Department] are asking for a determination of Arrears, a determination for
arrears is an ‘Independent Action’, see FC 4503.”1 Father’s response reflects that he
was aware of the request for a determination of arrears. Father was present at the
hearing regarding determining arrears. The record does not support Father’s assertion
that the determination of arrears and setting of a payment schedule were done sua
sponte and without his awareness that the issues would be addressed. Accordingly, the
family court did not violate Father’s right of due process.
1 The entirety of Family Code section 4503 is quoted ante in the discussion regarding jurisdiction.
5
C. 2022 JUDGMENT
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 5, 2022, the family court entered a judgment against Mother for
child support arrears of $26,613.47. On September 14, 2023, when the family court
corrected the 2014 order to clarify that it was Father who had been required to pay child
support, the family court vacated the October 5, 2022, judgment. The family court
explained, “The court makes a finding that the 10/05/2022 Judgment was based on a
void order (as the 07/07/2014 [order] is hereby corrected to reflect that [Father] rather
than [Mother] is the obligor) and the court not being aware of the order made on
05/16/2017, adjudicating child support arrears [Father] was ordered to pay.”
2. ANALYSIS
Father asserts the October 5, 2022, judgment is a final judgment on arrears
because it was never appealed. “[T]he effect of a vacating order is to eliminate the
judgment. [Citation.] Once vacated, the status of the parties that existed prior to the
judgment is restored and the situation then prevailing is the same as though the order or
judgment had never been made.” (Bulmash v. Davis (1979) 24 Cal.3d 691, 697.)
Because the October 5, 2022 judgment was vacated, it no longer exists. Thus, Father’s
contention fails.
D. TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother and Father’s child, who is now an adult, was born on August 31, 2004.
The child’s 18th birthday was on August 31, 2022. On May 25, 2023, the family court
6
issued an order that reads, in relevant part, “After argument, the court finds that child
support terminated by operation of law and pursuant to Family Code 3901 on 08/31/22.”
2. ANALYSIS
Father contends the family court’s “Jurisdiction Terminated on 5/25/23.” As we
explained in the fourth appeal, a judgment for child support “is enforceable until paid in
full or otherwise satisfied.” (Fam. Code, §§ 291, subd. (a).) Thus, a child reaching the
age of 18 does not terminate a court’s jurisdiction over the issue of child support arrears.
E. 2014 STIPULATION
Father contends, “The order under appeal altering/impairing the
stipulation/contract is Void.” We understand Father’s contention as reasserting an issue
addressed in the fourth appeal: That the 2014 order was made by stipulation so
correcting it is a violation of the stipulation. (In re Marriage of Gilbert (May 14, 2025,
E082826) (modified June 12, 2025) [nonpub. opn.] at p. 8.) Because we addressed that
issue in the fourth appeal and Father does not indicate that anything has changed, we
will not address the issue again.
F. CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHT
Father contends he had a property interest in the 2014 child support order, and it
violates the Constitution to deprive him of that property interest. We addressed this
issue in the fourth appeal. (In re Marriage of Gilbert (May 14, 2025, E082826)
(modified June 12, 2025) [nonpub. opn.] at pp. 8-9.) Father does not indicate that
anything has changed on this issue since the fourth appeal. Therefore, we will not
address the issue again.
7
G. THE DEPARTMENT’S STANDING
Father contends the Department lacks standing to participate in this case. As we
explained in the fourth appeal, the Department is involved in the case because Mother
received public assistance during the time that Father failed to pay child support. (In re
Marriage of Gilbert (May 14, 2025, E082826) (modified June 12, 2025) [nonpub. opn.]
at pp. 10-11.) Because we addressed this issue in the fourth appeal and Father does not
indicate that anything has changed, we will not address the issue again.
H. INTEREST
Father proclaims the family court “cannot waive ‘Accrued Interest’ on the
arrears.” Father provides no analysis so it is unclear exactly what he is trying to assert.
We note that the family court determined Father owed child support arrears of
$26,523.44, of which $12,940.40 is interest.
I. RACISM
Father contends that, through the years, this court has ruled against him due to
the court being racist. Father’s appeals have failed for the reasons set forth in the
opinions filed in this case.
8
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondent California Department of Child Support
Services is awarded its costs on appeal, if any.2 (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
2 We do not award costs to respondent Isabel Gilbert-Barrios because she did not make an appearance in this court.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the family court retained jurisdiction to enforce child support arrears while an appeal was pending because the order involved the payment of money and no undertaking was posted. It further held that the family court did not violate due process or err in its determinations regarding arrears, the status of vacated judgments, or the continuation of jurisdiction over support arrears after a child reaches majority.
Issues
Did the family court lack jurisdiction to enter an arrears order while a prior appeal was pending?
Did the family court violate due process by entering an arrears order without notice?
Did the family court err in its treatment of a previously vacated judgment and the continuation of jurisdiction over arrears after the child reached age 18?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Without an undertaking, the family court retained jurisdiction to enforce the payment of arrears.”
“The record does not support Father’s assertion that the determination of arrears and setting of a payment schedule were done sua sponte and without his awareness that the issues would be addressed.”
“Thus, a child reaching the age of 18 does not terminate a court’s jurisdiction over the issue of child support arrears.”