In Re Marriage of Loya

Opinion

SCHAEFER, J.

*

—In this dissolution of marriage action, the issue of the validity of an antenuptial agreement between the parties was bifurcated from the other trial issues and that issue was litigated. After hearing evidence, the trial court ruled that the antenuptial agreement was unenforceable and made certain findings in support of that ruling. Thereafter, petitioner, the proponent of the antenuptial agreement, filed his notice of appeal of that ruling. No orders were made relative to division of community property nor was any judgment entered on any issue in this matter.

We do not reach the merits of petitioner’s appeal because this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Nonetheless, we discuss the

[1638]

appealability issue for several reasons: first, although respondent vigorously opposes petitioner’s contentions on appeal, respondent does not raise the issue of this court’s lack of jurisdiction; second, interim rulings on bifurcated issues are a frequent occurrence in the family law trial arena; and finally, the only published family law case which arrived on the appellate scene in a like procedural posture was decided on its substantive merits.

1

Petitioner contends that the trial court erred in what he characterizes at times as a “ruling,” at other times as an “order” and at other times as a “judgment. ” Although the law relating to appealability speaks in terms of orders or judgments, we recognize that it is not the label but rather the substance and effect of a court’s judgment or order which determines whether or not it is appealable.

(Ezer

v.

Fuchsloch

(1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 849, 856 [160 Cal.Rptr. 486, 13 A.L.R.4th 1333].) We view the trial court’s conduct in this case as being in the nature of an interim ruling.

The right to appeal in California is wholly governed by statute and appellate courts have no jurisdiction to entertain appeals except as provided by the Legislature.