Marriage of Wilson CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Nov 15, 2023 No. G061770Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the interpleader statute did not apply to the appellant because she was not a stakeholder facing competing claims, but rather a party asserting a claim to the funds, and further held that the appellant forfeited her claim regarding the lack of statutory authority for the interest award.

Issues

Whether the interpleader statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 386) applies to a party who is not a neutral stakeholder but is instead claiming the funds for herself.
Whether the appellant forfeited her claim that no statute authorized the trial court's award of interest on the levied funds.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The interpleader scheme had no application to Stephanie, who was not subject to conflicting claims and did not disclaim entitlement to the deposited funds.”

“A depositor’s request that the court distribute the funds to her—a request Stephanie made—is inconsistent with this requirement.”

“By failing to raise this contention before the trial court, Stephanie has forfeited it, and we therefore do not consider it.”

Filed 11/15/23 Marriage of Wilson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of STEPHANIE and DUANE WILSON.

STEPHANIE WILSON, G061770 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 12D005671) v. OPINION DUANE WILSON,

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David J. Hesseltine, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Mark Mazda and Mark Mazda for Plaintiff and Appellant. Duane H. Wilson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

The trial court ordered Stephanie Wilson to pay Duane Wilson, her former husband, interest on funds that she had wrongly levied from his savings account and that 1 were released to him only years later. Stephanie challenges the interest award, arguing that under Code of Civil Procedure section 386 (the interpleader statute), no interest 2 accrued because she had deposited the funds with the court after she levied them. She also claims no statute permitted the award. We conclude that the interpleader statute did not apply to Stephanie, who did not seek the court’s protection from competing claims, as the statute requires, but instead sought the funds to herself. We further conclude Stephanie forfeited her claim that no statute authorized the award. We therefore affirm. FACTS In 2015, Stephanie and Duane signed stipulations and orders for judgment in their marriage dissolution proceeding. Among other things, their stipulation and the ensuing judgment required Duane to transfer $250,000 from a savings account and roll over $250,000 from his retirement account to Stephanie. In 2017, after Duane made the savings account transfer but failed to make the rollover from his retirement account, Stephanie hired an attorney to enforce the 3 judgment. The attorney obtained a writ of execution and levied about $224,000 from Duane’s savings account, rather than his retirement account, pointing to the portion of the judgment ordering the savings account transfer. Stephanie asked the attorney to disburse the levied funds to her, but the attorney refused, stating that Duane disputed the levy. The attorney deposited the levied funds with the trial court and filed a motion to

Marriage of Wilson CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.

MOTOIKE, J.

AI Brief