Marriage of Wondries
Filed 4/11/06 Marriage of Wondries CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| In re Marriage of PAUL C. and JILL C. WONDRIES. | B181295 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD371557) |
| PAUL C. WONDRIES, Appellant, v. JILL C. WONDRIES, Respondent. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mitchell L. Beckloff, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed as modified.
Buter, Buzard, Dunaetz & Fishbein and Glenn S. Buzard for Petitioner and Appellant.
Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Doeringer and Jeffrey W. Doeringer for Respondent.
_____________________
In this dissolution of marriage action the husband appeals to challenge a condition the court imposed as a prerequisite to granting his request for early termination of marital status. We will modify the disputed condition to comport with existing statutory and decisional law, and as so modified, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Paul and Jill Wondries were married on December 14, 1963. Paul[1] filed a petition for dissolution on July 20, 2002 after a marriage of approximately 38 years.[2]
During the course of their marriage the parties accumulated a substantial community property estate worth in excess of $100 million. These community assets included 18 automobile dealerships, related automotive businesses and approximately 32 parcels of real property.
On January 12, 2004 Paul filed a motion seeking an early and separate trial on the issue of marital status. Paul supported his motion with a declaration stating he and Jill had irremediable and irreconcilable differences. He explained continuing disputes over property and support issues would likely continue to delay conclusion of the dissolution proceedings and it would benefit him psychologically and emotionally to promptly dissolve their marital status.
Paul's proposed judgment included all the suggested conditions precedent to early termination of marital status listed in Family Code section 2337.[3] Jill agreed to early termination of marital status as a general matter but proposed 12 additional nonstatutory conditions. Paul agreed to each of Jill's proposed additional conditions except one. The disputed condition Jill proposed required Paul to indemnify her for potential capital gains tax liability resulting from her inability to claim a stepped up basis as a surviving spouse in the event of his death prior to final judgment.
The disputed condition states: â€
