Marriage of Slotkin CA2/4

Filed 8/17/16 Marriage of Slotkin CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

In re the Marriage of GAIL SLOTKIN and B262045 MARK SLOTKIN. (Los Angeles County GAIL SLOTKIN, Super. Ct. No. BD531307)

Respondent,

v.

MARK SLOTKIN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen M. Moloney, Judge. Dismissed. Brian J. Kramer; Price, Postel & Parma and Drew Maley, for Appellant. Langlois Family Law and Joseph Langlois; Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Judith E. Posner, for Respondent. ______________________________

In this marital dissolution case, Mark Slotkin appeals from an order reserving for trial his request for modification of interim spousal support. Since the appeal is from a nonappealable order, we dismiss it.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant married respondent Gail Slotkin in 1993. Their prenuptial agreement contains a general spousal support waiver, followed by several exceptions. One of those exceptions entitles respondent to spousal support in the amount of $37,500 a year, plus $750 a month for each of their two children, which the parties agree amounts to a total of $4,625 a month. Respondent filed for dissolution in 2010. On May 11, 2011, Judge Stephen M. Moloney ordered appellant to contribute a certain amount towards respondent’s attorney and accounting fees, as well as to pay $100,000 in unallocated interim child and spousal support. On January 5, 2012, the judge awarded respondent $40,000 and $20,000 a month in temporary spousal and child support respectively, with a start date on December 15, 2011. In February 2012, after a prolonged hearing, Judge Moloney issued a permanent domestic violence restraining order against appellant and ordered him to complete a batterer intervention program. A bifurcated trial on the validity of the prenuptial agreement was held before Judge Maren E. Nelson between February and April 2013. Judge Nelson denied respondent’s motion in limine to bar appellant from proceeding to trial under the disentitlement doctrine. The judge concluded that respondent had failed to offer admissible evidence of appellant’s noncompliance with court orders, and that his alleged noncompliance was unrelated to the validity of the prenuptial agreement. As reflected in the statement of decision, respondent contended that the agreement was unconscionable because it had been induced by fraud and signed under duress, that it was unconscionable and unenforceable because of appellant’s domestic violence, and that it was void as against public policy because it imposed limits on child support and attorney fees.