Marriage of Goveia and Kasberger CA4/3

Filed 5/14/15 Marriage of Goveia and Kasberger CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of JOSEPH GOVEIA and LINDA E. KASBERGER.

JOSEPH GOVEIA, G051329 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 07D005001) v. OPINION LINDA E. KASBERGER,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Renee Wilson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Castle & Monarch, Michael J. Monarch, Snell & Wilmer, Richard A. Derevan, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Robin Meadow and Robert A. Olson for Appellant. Law Offices of Steven E. Briggs, Steven E. Briggs and Luis A. McKissick for Respondent.

* * * THE COURT:* The parties to this marital dissolution proceeding bifurcated the issue of marital status for separate judgment and trial from reserved issues concerning the division of marital property. While the family law court has issued a final judgment on marital status, the court has yet to issue a final judgment on the reserved issues, although it has issued a judgment which bears the label “Judgment on Reserved Issues.” Out of an excess of caution, the husband has taken an appeal from this “judgment,” although both spouses contend such an appeal is premature because the trial court has yet to hold further hearings and issue a final judgment concerning the reserved matters. We agree and dismiss the appeal from what amounts to a preliminary and interlocutory order. Appellate review must await further proceedings and a final judgment. BACKGROUND In April 2010, the family court filed a status only judgment of dissolution between appellant (Husband) and respondent (Wife). The parties subsequently stipulated to appoint a referee (retired Judge Thomas Murphy) to determine an accounting for the use of community funds, with the family court (Commissioner Renee Wilson) to determine contested issues of breach of fiduciary duties and sanctions. On November 21, 2014, Commissioner Wilson signed and filed a document entitled “Judgment on reserved issues.” The judgment and accompanying statement of decision endeavored to resolve disputed issues concerning Husband’s alleged breach of his fiduciary obligations to Wife by failing to disclose a loan in excess of $1 million to Husband’s business partner, as well as the partner’s alleged partial repayment, among