Fauerbach v. Carlisle CA3

Filed 3/8/23 Fauerbach v. Carlisle CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

CAROL FAUERBACH, C090306

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PP20170050)

v.

WILLIAM CARLISLE, as Beneficiary,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a 2019 ruling, the probate court ordered distributions from a trust that would have gone to William Carlisle go instead to Carol Fauerbach, because Carlisle had failed to pay spousal support and other money judgments to Fauerbach arising out of a 2018 family law judgment (2018 judgment). On appeal, Carlisle raises multiple claims, most of which are unpersuasive because they rest on the faulty premise the probate court should have reconsidered portions of the 2018 judgment. Carlisle’s other claims are forfeited or unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND The parties married in 1991 and divorced in 2015. Among other rulings made in a 2018 judgment arising out of the parties’ divorce proceedings, the trial court (1) divided the parties’ community property, (2) ordered Carlisle to pay $8,000 a month in permanent spousal support to Fauerbach, (3) ordered Carlisle to pay to Fauerbach $125,000 in sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271,1 and (4) awarded to Carlisle “El Dorado Savings Account #1873, Umpqua Account #2902, $42,040.00 excess from the DCSS, levy without offset from [Fauerbach].”2 Carlisle appealed, and a panel of this court affirmed the 2018 judgment in a 2021 opinion, explaining Carlisle “forfeited his claims of error, and his brief [was], in any event, insufficient to satisfy his burden . . . to demonstrate error.” (In re Marriage of Carlisle (Jan. 6, 2021, C086346) [nonpub. opn.].) Carlisle having failed to meet inter alia his spousal support obligations, Fauerbach sought to enforce the 2018 judgment, in part, by filing a petition in the probate court against Carlisle as a beneficiary of a trust. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 709.010, subd. (b) [a “judgment debtor’s interest as a beneficiary of a trust is subject to enforcement of a money judgment . . . upon petition under this section by a judgment creditor”].) Over multiple days, the probate court received evidence from the parties, who each appeared in pro. per. and were both licensed to practice law in California. At one point during trial, when Carlisle discussed the 2018 judgment, the probate court said to Carlisle: “I’m not relitigating your family law case. This is the ruling from your family