Saints' Rest Missionary Baptist Church v. Anderson CA1/5

Filed 3/2/16 Saints’ Rest Missionary Baptist Church v. Anderson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SAINTS’ REST MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ANDERSON, SR., Defendant; LOUISE OWENS et al., Objectors and Appellants. LOUISE OWENS et al., Petitioners; v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, A141516 Respondent; (Alameda County SAINTS’ REST MISSIONARY BAPTIST Super. Ct. No. RG07320956) CHURCH, INC., Real Party in Interest.

Louise Owens, Bobbie Wakefield, and Maxine Webb (appellants) appeal from post-judgment orders issued in this dispute among members of plaintiff and respondent Saints’ Rest Missionary Baptist Church (the Church). We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND We recite only the facts relevant to this appeal. In January 2012, following a bench trial, the trial court issued a permanent injunction in favor of the Church. The injunction ordered, in part, defendant James Anderson, Sr. (defendant) terminated from his position as the Church’s pastor; certain Church office holders who had been removed were reinstated; certain Church members who had been expelled were readmitted; and defendant and all those acting in support of or in concert with him were precluded from various activities. In its order granting injunctive relief, the trial court identified appellants Wakefield and Owen, among others, as supporters of defendant. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. (Saints’ Rest Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. v. James Anderson, Sr. (Apr. 25, 2013, A134425) [nonpub. opn.].) In October 2013, the trial court issued an order granting the Church’s application for an order enforcing the judgment. The October 2013 order, in part, precluded appellants and others from “acting on behalf of” the Church unless duly elected to a Church office. In February 2014, following briefing and argument from the Church and appellants, the trial court issued orders finding appellants in contempt of the October 2013 order, awarding attorney fees to the Church, and directing appellants to stay 500 yards away from the Church’s properties. DISCUSSION Appellants appeal the October 2013 and February 2014 orders.1 We reject their challenges. Appellants first argue they never received notice of the October 2013 order and had no knowledge of its terms. In the February 2014 contempt order, the trial court found appellants had been served with the October 2013 order. “ ‘Where findings of fact