Wright v. Wright CA1/5

Filed 1/11/21 Wright v. Wright CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CHARLES WRIGHT, Respondent, v. A160252

KIM WRIGHT, (Humboldt County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FL030183)

Appellant Kim Wright (Appellant) appeals from the family court’s April 3, 2020 order in this proceeding involving Appellant and her former husband, petitioner and respondent Charles Wright (Respondent). The court’s order declared void 2004 and 2005 awards of child support to Appellant on the ground that the court that entered the orders lacked jurisdiction to impose child support on Respondent, who was the minor’s grandfather and guardian but not her parent. Because the 2004 and 2005 orders were not subject to collateral attack, we reverse. BACKGROUND The order at issue on appeal is a post-judgment order in the parties’ marital dissolution proceeding, initiated in March 2003. In November 2002, in a separate proceeding, the parties had been appointed guardians of their

1

granddaughter Brook K. (the Minor). The family court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, and, in June 2004 and April 2005, the court entered orders directing Respondent to pay Appellant over $500 per month in child support. The 2005 order stated, “THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that since Petitioner Charles Wright is a guardian of the granddaughter, Brook, that she should be included in any child support calculations, and she is included in the calculations set forth above.” The 2004 order contained similar language.1 Previously, a December 2003 stipulation and order had confirmed that a house in Eureka was Respondent’s separate property. It also provided that Appellant would have the right to remain in the house until January 31, 2004, and, somewhat inconsistently, that Appellant would move out of the house after Respondent paid her $5,000 on or before January 10, 2004. The December 2003 stipulation and order also required Respondent to make an additional $40,000 payment to Appellant. It is undisputed the payments were not made and Appellant has remained in the house without paying rent to Respondent, although Appellant averred she paid for maintenance of the property. In January 2019, Respondent filed a request for a determination he had satisfied the financial obligations in the December 2003 order by allowing Appellant to live in the Eureka house without paying rent; he also sought an order directing Appellant to move out of the residence.2 Appellant opposed