In re Marriage of Seachrist CA4/3

Filed 8/10/15 In re Marriage of Seachrist CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of LYN L. and GREGORY S. SEACHRIST.

LYN L. BELL, G050148 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 94D10622) v. OPINION GREGORY S. SEACHRIST,

Appellant;

ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent. Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Erick L. Larsh, Judge. Affirmed. Robert J. Wheeler for Appellant Gregory S. Seachrist. David H. Lantzer for Respondent Orange County Employees Retirement System. No appearance for Respondent Lynn L. Bell.

The Seachrists divorced in 1995. Because husband was a participant in the Orange County Employees Retirement System, part of the benefits he accrued in this system was community property. The parties stipulated to a domestic relations order, approved by the court, dividing their respective interests in the retirement system. The order provides: “Payments to the alternate payee [wife] shall be available, on application of the alternate payee to the plan administrator, on the same basis and at the same times as such benefits are actually paid to participant [husband] in accordance with In re Marriage of Jensen (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1137 [Jensen].” (Capitalization omitted.) In 2013, wife filed a petition requesting distribution from the domestic relations order under In re Marriage of Gillmore (1981) 29 Cal.3d 418 [Gillmore]. She claimed entitlement to her share of retirement benefits although husband, though eligible for retirement, was still employed by the County of Orange and had indicated he did not intend to retire for some time. In an “order after hearing” dated July 14, 2014, the trial court granted the petition. On May 16, 2014, husband filed a notice of appeal from two minute orders that preceded the “order after hearing.” But it is clear from the briefs that he intends to appeal from the July 14 order. We shall treat the notice of appeal as being from the latter order. (Smith v. Smith (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 194, 195; Seven Up Bottling Co. v. Grocery Drivers Union (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 623, 624-625.) The Orange County Employees Retirement System was joined as a party because it is one of husband’s contentions the retirement system, rather than he, should pay wife’s share of the retirement benefits. In response to husband’s opening brief, the retirement system filed a respondent’s brief. Wife has not filed a response in this appeal. We affirm the postjudgment order.