Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead CA3

Filed 8/6/14 Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of ROBERT M. MEAD and C073814 CAROLYN INEZ WILLIAMS-MEAD.

ROBERT M. MEAD, (Super. Ct. No. 03FL03504)

Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN INEZ WILLIAMS-MEAD,

Respondent.

After nearly 10 years of unsuccessful litigation against his ex-wife, a vexatious lawyer now asserts the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to order him to pay attorney fees following his last appeal. He insists for the first time the parties did not request the court to retain jurisdiction once judgment was entered pursuant to their marital settlement agreement as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (section 664.6). We conclude that wife’s motion for attorney fees following husband’s

1

appeal was not an attempt “to enforce the settlement” within the meaning of section 664.6. Simply put, section 664.6 does not apply. We affirm. FACTUAL CONTEXT We agree with appellant Robert Mead, an adjudicated vexatious litigant, that few facts are relevant to the disposition of the sole legal question presented. The sordid details of the litigation and Robert’s two unsuccessful appeals are set forth in our two prior opinions. (In re Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead (Nov. 1, 2007, C052999) [nonpub. opn.] (Mead I); In re Marriage of Mead and Williams-Mead (Sept. 17, 2012, C065718) [nonpub. opn.] (Mead II).) A brief paragraph will suffice as background for the resolution of Robert’s latest spurious attempt to frustrate Carolyn, his ex-wife. In December 2004 Robert and Carolyn entered into a marital settlement agreement. (Mead I, supra, C052999.) On March 8, 2005, the court entered judgment pursuant to the agreement. (Ibid.) The judgment provides: “Jurisdiction is reserved to make other orders necessary to carry out this judgment.” Among other terms, Robert agreed to pay Carolyn a $50,000 equalizing payment following the distribution of marital assets. To date Robert has not made the payment, but he has lost four motions to vacate, resisted Carolyn’s motion to enforce the settlement, filed for bankruptcy protection, and prosecuted two unsuccessful appeals in this court. (See Mead I, supra, C052999; Mead II, supra, C065718.) The court awarded Carolyn $80,201 in attorney fees incurred in defending the 2012 appeal in this court. (Fam. Code, §§ 2030, 271.) Robert appeals again. DISCUSSION Robert contends that the courts of this state are impotent to act in this matter because he and his ex-wife did not request, either orally or in writing, the court to retain jurisdiction after judgment was entered. He bases his jurisdictional challenge exclusively on section 664.6 and does not otherwise challenge the amount of the award.