Marriage of Bradford CA4/3

Filed 4/29/16 Marriage of Bradford 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 DENISE BRADFORD and MARK BRADFORD.

DENISE BRADFORD, G050650 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 09D005163) v. OPINION MARK BRADFORD,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Reversed. The Law Offices of Saylin & Swisher, Brian G. Saylin and Lindsay L. Swisher for Appellant. Thomas Vogele & Associates, Thomas A. Vogele and Timothy M. Kowal for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In disagreement on nearly every issue, divorcing spouses Mark and Denise Bradford have had – so far – two bench trials to resolve their dissolution issues. The first trial dissolved the marriage and allocated support and child custody. The second trial dealt with the distribution of various assets. The second trial is the subject of this appeal. Before the second trial, the parties commendably found some things they could agree upon and stipulated to a number of issues. Among them was a stipulation that certain retirement account withdrawals made by Mark between June 2009 – when Denise filed for divorce – and April 2010 – when Mark moved out of the family home – were to be treated as “post separation.” The trial court accepted the stipulation, but then, at the conclusion of the trial, ruled that since the parties had in fact not separated until April 2010, the retirement account withdrawals were preseparation. This holding is the basis of Denise’s appeal. She asserts the court was without power to find contrary to the parties’ stipulation that the withdrawals were made postseparation. Mark contends Denise’s appeal is untimely, arguing, in essence, that the proposed judgment he submitted to the trial court – which the court signed and entered – was meaningless. We cannot agree. We believe that was the final judgment in this case, and we conclude Denise’s notice of appeal was timely filed. We therefore deny Mark’s motion to dismiss. We also conclude Denise is right about the separation. A trial court cannot accept a stipulation at the beginning of a trial, try the case on that basis, and then reject the stipulation when it makes its decision. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment to the extent it is based on a determination that the withdrawals from Mark’s retirement account were preseparation.