Rice v. Eaton CA3

Filed 7/27/15 Rice v. Eaton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

LORAIN RICE, C074499

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SFS18719)

v.

THOMAS EATON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mother Lorain Rice appeals from court orders dated May 30, 2013, July 10, 2013, and October 3, 2013. She claims the orders are void and should be vacated. These claims are moot. Mother appears also to contend that although the July 10, 2013, order has now been vacated, the order precludes her from collecting interest and seeking contempt for the period before the order’s revocation (the July 10, 2013, order). We conclude this contention is not ripe for our review. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

1

BACKGROUND For two days in May 2013, the parties presented evidence and argument to the trial court on issues related to, among other things, modification of child support, child support arrears, and failure to comply with court orders. In the course of that trial, following discussions “off the record,” the parties agreed to a “global resolution of all outstanding issues between the parties with respect to payment of current support and payment on arrears, and the outstanding contempt proceedings . . . .” That global resolution, identified as a judicially supervised agreement entered into in open court under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, included a finding that the total amount of child support arrears owed by father was $125,000. Father agreed to make regular payments toward the arrears, pursuant to an installment plan. Additionally, there would be a “stay of enforcement of [the judgment on arrears], contingent upon” father’s adherence to the installment plan agreed to by the parties. Should father be late on a single payment, “the entire balance [would be] due and payable, the contemplated global resolution would be revoked, and all enforcement remedies would be available to [mother].” The parties also agreed that if father “pays [$]25,000 a year for four years, then that will resolve all principal, interest, childcare, attorney’s fees, and all other accrued interest from this point onward, and all arrears with respect to the amounts that are due and owing today would be forgiven.” The trial court also ordered father to pay to mother $2,500 each month in child support, beginning June 1, 2013. The court further ordered the issue of ongoing child support be continued to October 3, 2013; the court hoped the parties could resolve the issue on their own prior to that hearing. Shortly after the resolution was entered in the record, father’s counsel prepared the written order, which mother said did not reflect the terms of their agreement. Accordingly, mother filed a motion seeking to “clarify the order” and have the court include additional language in the order. A week later, on July 10, 2013, the order, as