Marriage of Wright CA1/2

Filed 10/27/14 Marriage of Wright CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re the Marriage of ELIZABETH L. and CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT.

ELIZABETH L. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. A139626 CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT, (Napa County Respondent. Super. Ct. No. 26-43408)

Elizabeth Wright appeals from the judgment of dissolution of her marriage to Christopher Wright. She seeks modification of a provision in the judgment awarding to Christopher “all assets” in his possession, arguing that the provision should refer only to “all disclosed assets.” We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The judgment of dissolution of the marriage of Elizabeth and Christopher Wright was filed on June 25, 2013. One provision of the judgment states that Christopher will receive “[a]ll assets in his possession or control except as specified herein.”1 On July 17, 2013, Elizabeth filed a request for clarification of five items in what she referred to as “our marriage settlement agreement.” The first of these concerned the provision just quoted. Elizabeth stated, “This was never ordered by Judge Ortiz. It 1 The corresponding provision states that Elizabeth will receive “[a]ll assets currently in her possession or control, except as specified herein.”

1

should say that all Disclosed assets (except as specified herein) should remain in his possession. [¶] There is a high likelihood of undisclosed assets in this case, and they should not be automatically awarded to the respondent.” The request for clarification indicated a hearing date of August 26, 2013. Christopher filed a responsive declaration stating that all of the provisions Elizabeth was asking to be clarified had been argued by both parties at trial and again regarding the language of the judgment, and that Elizabeth was in fact asking the court to change its rulings on these matters without offering any supporting authority. The record does not contain any documentation of further action on the request for clarification. Elizabeth filed her notice of appeal from the judgment on August 23, 2013. Her opening brief, filed on February 21, 2014, raises the single issue of modifying the just- quoted provision to refer to “all disclosed assets.” Christopher responded to the opening brief with a letter filed on February 28, stating that he had “no problem with the change of wording that Elizabeth Wright has asked for in her opening brief.” He added, “In fact my attorney offered to stipulate this at an earlier date. I am representing myself in this matter and I hope this brings this case to a close. I have supplied Ms. Wright with every document she has ever asked for and have never hidden any assets.” On March 13, Elizabeth filed a letter stating that she appreciated the matter being settled but disputing Christopher’s statements that his “concession” had been made at an earlier date and that all financial documents had been disclosed as requested. Elizabeth stated that Christopher’s attorney had offered to fix his “erroneous wording,” but only along with the addition of several conditions that she did not feel she could agree to. Stating that this left her no choice but to file this appeal, Elizabeth requested that Christopher reimburse her for the expenses associated with the appeal, $775 paid to this court and $444 paid to the superior court for preparation of the clerk’s transcript. Christopher responded with another letter, filed on March 21, stating that there was no need for Elizabeth to have filed the appeal because he had offered to stipulate to her request and, in any case, there was no need to be concerned with undisclosed assets because an “established set of laws” took care of this issue. Christopher stated that