Baron v. Baron CA2/6

Filed 8/17/23 Baron v. Baron CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SANDRA BARON, 2d Civ. No. B323127 (Super. Ct. No. SD036684) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

RICHARD BARON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Richard Baron appeals a post-judgment order granting Sandra Baron’s request to sell a ranch property they acquired during their marriage. He contends the order violates the terms of a marital settlement agreement incorporated into their interlocutory judgment of dissolution. We affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Richard and Sandra1 divorced in 2011 after 28 years of marriage. The judgment of dissolution (judgment) incorporated a

1 We use the first names of the parties for clarity, intending

no disrespect.

“Partial Marital Settlement Agreement” dividing their assets and liabilities (settlement). This included a 46-acre ranch on Stockton Road in Moorpark, California. The settlement required Sandra to transfer her interest in the ranch to Richard. In exchange, Richard agreed to refinance the $1.4 million mortgage and to “remove [Sandra] as a borrower as soon as he possibly can.” Sandra recorded an interspousal transfer deed granting “[a]ll of her right, title and interest” in the ranch to Richard shortly after signing the settlement. The parties returned to court in 2017 when Sandra requested an order enforcing the settlement’s refinancing provision. Richard acknowledged he had not yet removed her as a borrower. The court continued the matter several times as Richard applied to assume their current mortgage, and, later, sought to refinance with other lenders. His low credit scores and high debt-to-income ratio made him a poor candidate for a loan. He also discovered most banks would not accept residential loan applications for the ranch because he used part of it for commercial growing operations. The outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 slowed progress further. Sandra remained on the mortgage in the meantime. Sandra requested an order in February of 2022 compelling Richard to sell the ranch. Sandra argued it was not fair for her to carry a large debt on a property she had “no rights or interest in.” She also feared becoming entangled in probate litigation if Richard predeceased her. Richard insisted he was working diligently to obtain commercial financing with a local credit union and requested more time to complete the process. He opposed selling the ranch because it would leave him without income. The trial court granted Sandra’s request and appointed a receiver to oversee the sale (sale order). It concluded: “[T]he Court accepts that, perhaps, it may, in fact, be true that