Marriage of Frazier CA3

Filed 7/20/15 Marriage of Frazier CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FLAVIS, JR., and JOANN C076791 YVETTE FRAZIER.

FLAVIS FRAZIER, JR., (Super. Ct. No. 12FL02293)

Respondent,

v.

JOANNE YVETTE FRAZIER,

Appellant.

Joanne Yvette Frazier (wife) appeals from a court order compelling her to pay attorney fees totaling $2,000 to Flavis Frazier, Jr. (husband), as sanctions under Family Code section 271,1 and which authorizes the clerk of the court to sign the listing agreement for sale of the marital residence. Wife contends the trial court committed

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

1

numerous errors in issuing its orders. We conclude wife’s claims are not supported by the appellate record or legal argument and affirm the orders of the trial court. Wife has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the hearing in this matter. This is referred to as a judgment roll appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) The limited record we have establishes that in April 2012, husband filed a petition to dissolve the parties’ nearly seven-year marriage. In October 2012, husband filed a motion to bifurcate the issue of marital status from all remaining issues in the dissolution proceeding. The court granted husband’s motion and a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage was entered on January 10, 2013. The court reserved jurisdiction on “all other issues.” In December 2013, husband filed a motion seeking attorney fees as sanctions under section 271, and an order compelling wife to cooperate in the sale of the marital residence. Wife opposed the motion, arguing it was husband who was not cooperating with her. Wife also did not approve of the agent husband chose to list the marital residence. On April 8, 2014, husband gave wife notice he would be appearing ex parte in the trial court on the following day. Husband would again seek the court’s assistance in compelling wife to execute the documents necessary to list the marital residence for sale. The trial court granted husband an order shortening time for his motion and set a hearing on April 23, 2014, but otherwise denied his request. Wife again opposed husband’s motion. Wife wanted the opportunity to buy the marital residence before it was listed for sale. Wife was already prequalified for $350,000 and her brother was “in the process” of prequalifying for an additional $250,000.