Mondloch v. Bell CA5

Filed 5/16/23 Mondloch v. Bell CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

KATHLEEN MONDLOCH (BELL), F084407 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. F71486) v.

BETSY BELL, OPINION Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Shelly Seymour, Judge. Cyril Lawrence, Inc. and Cyril L. Lawrence for Appellant. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth and Christopher A. Kent for Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appellant Kathleen Mondloch (Bell) challenges the trial court’s award of $57,833 to her daughter, Betsy Bell (daughter), representing a one-sixth interest in the family home that was sold through a short sale in 2011. Our review of the record provided on appeal, and the relevant legal standards governing the interpretation of the language used in the agreement at issue here, leads us to conclude this matter must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY On February 7, 1984, an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered, with an attached stipulation dividing the community and separate property assets of Mondloch and Jimmie Bell (ex-husband) (hereinafter “1984 property agreement”). Among the property addressed in the 1984 property agreement was the “family” residence (the Mulberry property), which was declared to be Mondloch’s sole and separate property as follows:

“All interest of the parties in the house and lot at 5520 West Mulberry, Atwater, California, subject to the equitable interest of the minor children as more particularly set forth in this judgment.” Later in the 1984 property agreement, this equitable interest designated for the two minor children of the marriage was described this way:

“One-third of the gross value of the residence at 5520 West Mulberry, Atwater, California, which is awarded to [Mondloch] under the terms of this judgment, with the interest granted herein to be held in trust for the benefit of the minor children under the provisions set forth in the Civil Code of California, with one-half of the principle and accrued income of the trust distributed to each child as she attains the age of twenty-five (25); the interest created herein shall be an equitable interest and shall accrue to the benefit of the minor children upon the sale of the residence, or the death of Petitioner, whichever first occurs; and, [Mondloch] and [ex-husband] shall act as co-trustees with the powers more specifically designated in Section 1120.2 of the Probate Code of California for the purposes of this paragraph, the gross value is defined as the gross sale proceeds of the residence less any costs of sale and real estate commissions.”