Marriage of Lee and Wong CA4/3

Filed 5/27/14 Marriage of Lee and Wong CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of CRYSTAL LEE and WINSTON WONG, JR.

CRYSTAL LEE, G047849 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 12D000102) v. OPINION WINSTON WONG, JR.,

Respondent.

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). Trope and Trope, Thomas Paine Dunlap, Ronald A. Rale and Soo J. Kim for Appellant. Honey Kessler Amado; Kristin L. Smith; Snell & Wilmer and Richard A. Derevan for Respondent. * * *

THE COURT:* This appeal involves competing actions in California and Taiwan to dissolve the marriage of Crystal Lee and Winston Wong. The couple reached a settlement and executed a “Deal Memo” outlining the terms of their settlement. They agreed to dismiss both actions and dissolve their marriage by registering a “Divorce Agreement” with the Taiwanese government. When the couple could not agree on the Divorce Agreement’s final form, Wong moved to bifurcate marital status in the California action and have the court enter a judgment dissolving the marriage while reserving jurisdiction over all other issues. The trial court granted that motion and entered two judgments, one dissolving the marriage and a second entering the terms of the Deal Memo as a judgment on reserved issues. Lee appealed, arguing the Deal memo required a dismissal in California, not a judgment. While her appeal from those judgments was pending, Lee and Wong reached a new settlement that dissolved their marriage in Taiwan as they originally agreed and also resolved all other issues relating to custody, support, and property division. As part of that settlement, Lee and Wong have filed a stipulated request to reverse the trial court’s judgments and remand for the court to dismiss the California action to avoid any conflict with the dissolution of the marriage in Taiwan. We grant the request. We have examined the joint application and the record on appeal, and determine the stipulated reversal will not adversely affect the interests of any nonparties or the public, will not erode public trust in the courts, and will not reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)1 This is a private family dispute between Taiwanese residents that arose when they were unable to carry out the terms of their original settlement. The stipulated reversal not only