Marriage of Van Der Veer and Regalbuto CA2/3

Filed 3/19/15 Marriage of Van Der Veer and Regalbuto CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of B254486 LOTTE VAN DER VEER and MICHAEL ANTHONY REGALBUTO (Los Angeles County ___________________________________ Super. Ct. No. SD031662 LOTTE VAN DER VEER,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY REGALBUTO,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Matthew C. St. George, Temporary Judge. Reversed and remanded. Law Office of Jane S. Preece and Jane S. Preece for Petitioner and Appellant. Linda T. Barney for Respondent.

_______________________________________

 (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)

In this marital dissolution action, Lotte van der Veer and Michael Regalbuto settled their dispute in two written agreements. Regalbuto then moved for entry of judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and submitted a proposed judgment that added approximately 30 pages of new provisions to the parties’ settlement agreements. The trial court entered judgment based on Regalbuto’s proposed judgment and van der Veer appealed, arguing that the judgment improperly added material terms to the parties’ stipulated agreements. We agree and reverse.1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties were married on February 14, 2011. On March 8, 2013, van der Veer filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Two weeks later, the parties agreed in a seven-page agreement to joint legal and physical custody of their daughter. On May 16, 2013, the parties entered into a second written agreement. It provided, inter alia, that Regalbuto would pay van der Veer child support and spousal support, that all personal property acquired during marriage would be divided equally, and that Regalbuto would pay van der Veer $6,500 for her attorney’s fees. This four-page agreement further provided that its terms would be incorporated into a judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (section 664.6) and that Regalbuto’s counsel would prepare the judgment. The agreement was filed with the court on May 20, 2013. On June 28, 2014, Regalbuto’s counsel emailed van der Veer a 39-page proposed judgment. The document incorporated most of the terms of the two prior agreements but added a number of new terms, including the following: (1) certain checking accounts, accrued benefits in a retirement account, and interest in certain real property would be characterized as Regalbuto’s separate property; (2) van der Veer would indemnify Regalbuto from certain debts; (3) Regalbuto would have the right to claim