Marriage of Wolff and Banerjee CA1/5

Filed 3/2/16 Marriage of Wolff and Banerjee CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re the Marriage of DONALD WOLFF and NANDITTA BANERJEE.

DONALD WOLFF, Appellant, A144094 v. (Contra Costa County NANDITTA BANERJEE, Super. Ct. No. MSD10-6091) Respondent.

In this family law dissolution proceeding, the court entered judgment after trial on reserved issues, including division of the community. After notice of entry of judgment, appellant Donald Wolff moved for reconsideration on the basis of new evidence that he had purportedly discovered after trial. The court denied the motion. We affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant Donald Wolff appeared pro se in the trial court and represents himself in this appeal.1 As is often the case in such matters, we are provided with a limited—and inadequate—record for review. As relevant here, the family law court conducted a bench trial on reserved issues, including division of the community obligations and assets, on August 19 and October 16, 2014. Those proceedings were not reported. The court made

1 Respondent Nanditta Banerjee has not appeared in this appeal.

1

findings and issued orders from the bench following each hearing. The record reflects no request by either party for a statement of decision. A “Judgment on reserved issues” (Judgment) was entered on November 21, 2014. Notice of entry of judgment was filed and served by the clerk of the court on the same date. On December 1, 2014, Wolff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, alleging that “new facts or circumstances have been discovered since the date of the order in that [Wolff] has discovered documentation that proves he had paid expenses that were community debt with personal monies after the date of separation.”2 He further alleged in his declaration that money considered community funds were in fact his separate property earned after the date of separation. He also asserted that there were “Errors located in Clerk Notes for both dates of trial.” He asked that the court “modify, amend or revoke the order Judgment on/for Reserved issues [sic].” Hearing on Wolff’s motion was held on January 13, 2015. The court declined to accept additional exhibits offered by Wolff and denied the motion.3 Wolff filed his notice of appeal on January 20, 2015. II. DISCUSSION A. Motion for Reconsideration Wolff complains that, at the January 13, 2015 hearing, the trial court refused to consider “important new evidence” and refused to accept his evidence to be lodged for appeal. We need not address the merits of Wolff’s reconsideration motion. Judgment was entered on November 21, 2014. After entry of judgment, the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide a motion for reconsideration. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 859, fn. 29: In re Marriage of Condon (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 533, 541, fn. 8; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937–938 [Code Civ. Proc., § 1008 is directed to interim rulings].)