Marriage of Turner CA2/6

Filed 11/16/23 Marriage of Turner CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of CARRIE 2d Civil No. B327782 LYNN and TYLER SAMPSON (Super. Ct. No. D398339) TURNER. (Ventura County)

CARRIE LYNN TURNER,

Respondent,

v.

TYLER SAMPSON TURNER,

Appellant.

Tyler Sampson Turner appeals from the judgment approving the dissolution of his marriage to Carrie Lynn Turner. Tyler1 contends the trial court erred when it found that he

1 We use the parties’ first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended.

electronically signed an agreement dividing his assets with Carrie. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Tyler and Carrie married in 2006. Carrie petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2020. In May 2022, Carrie and Tyler agreed to settle the issues remaining after the dissolution of their marriage. Tyler’s attorney prepared a “deal memo” memorializing the terms of the settlement. The deal memo required Tyler to pay Carrie $250,000, half of which was due within 90 days of the memo’s execution. Tyler’s attorney emailed Carrie’s attorney a copy of the memo bearing his and Tyler’s signatures. Carrie and her attorney countersigned the memo and circulated fully executed copies. In July, Tyler’s attorney sent Carrie’s attorney a proposed judgment. Carrie’s attorney sent proposed revisions, but then heard nothing for several weeks. When asked when they could expect to receive any additional revisions, Tyler’s attorney said that Tyler had not yet approved the judgment. At an August hearing, Carrie’s attorney told the trial court that Tyler and Carrie had reached the terms of a settlement, but that Tyler had not authorized revisions to the judgment. Tyler said that he had relieved his attorney and requested more time to review the matter with a new attorney. Three weeks later, Tyler sent Carrie a check for $125,000, as required by the deal memo. He later put a stop payment on the check and was “backing away” from the deal memo. Carrie requested an order to enforce the terms of the deal memo pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. During the hearing on Carrie’s request, the trial court found that the memo had been signed by the parties and their attorneys. It