CA Unpub Decisions

Both Erin Fleming and Michael Ackerman appeal from the judgment in their marital dissolution action. Fleming contends that the trial court erred when it awarded Ackerman a particular investment account as separate property; when it awarded the balance of a checking account to Ackerman; and when it reimbursed Ackerman the full amount of funds paid into escrow in conjunction with the purchase of a home. Ackerman challenges the orders requiring him to reimburse the community for his occupancy of the marital home after separation and to pay retroactive support, the court’s retention of jurisdiction over spousal support until mid-2018, and the division of funds in a retirement account. We modify the reimbursement award but otherwise affirm.

S.C. (mother) seeks extraordinary relief from an order setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 to consider termination of parental rights and to select a permanent plan for her two-year-old daughter, K.P. Mother’s sole contention is that she was not afforded reasonable reunification services. We disagree and deny mother’s petition on the merits.

C.V., mother of five children, seeks relief from those portions of April 27, 2017, orders (one as to each child), issued at the six-month status review hearing, in which the juvenile court ordered that mother was to stay away from the children’s school campuses, and limited mother’s right to make educational decisions for all the children. We affirm.

A former spouse who was awarded a parcel of real property as part of a stipulated family court judgment in a dissolution action sought in a subsequent legal proceeding to establish four easements for the benefit of that property. We conclude the family court judgment did not operate as res judicata so as to bar the easement claims. We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of cross-defendants Robert Morris (Robert), M5 Land & Cattle, LLC and Fitzell Ranch, LLC to the first amended cross-complaint (FACC) of cross-complainant Carol Morris (Carol).

Defendant George Curtis Cole appeals from a judgment of conviction following his no contest plea to the felony offense of committing corporeal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), and the misdemeanor offense of assault on a paramedic (§ 240). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of three years in state prison consisting of a three-year term for the felony conviction and a concurrent term of 180 days for the misdemeanor conviction. On appeal defendant challenges the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. (§ 1538.5.) We affirm.

Minor E.N. appeals a juvenile court order denying his motion to dismiss his dependency petitions and seal his records pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 and setting victim restitution under section 730.6. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for relief under section 786, but agree that the restitution order must be reduced by $81. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to modify the amount of restitution and affirm in all other respects.

Appellant Nicholas B., a minor, appeals from a judgment entered after he was found to come within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He contends that the jurisdictional finding of the juvenile court that he committed a hit and run offense in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a) (section 20001(a)) is not supported by substantial evidence because his mother, who was in the car with him, should be considered the driver under the hit and run statute. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

Appellant Abel Nazario Garcia was sentenced in two underlying cases to a total of 12 months in jail and three years and eight months in prison. He contends the trial court erred in failing to stay punishment on two counts under Penal Code section 654. We agree with regard to one of the offenses and otherwise affirm.

In this juvenile delinquency case, C.U., a previously adjudicated ward, was found to have violated section 245, subdivision (a)(4), section 422, subdivision (a), and section 69 of the Penal Code. She appeals, attacking the adjudications for insufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Saba Ali appeals from a judgment entered after the court sustained a demurrer to her first amended complaint without leave to amend. Ali contends (1) she alleged facts establishing causes of action under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (e.g., Civ. Code, § 2923.5); (2) the court erred in requiring her to allege a tender of the outstanding amount due under her loan; (3) she has standing to challenge the court’s ruling on her cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200); (4) the court abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend her claims for quiet title, promissory estoppel, negligence, and violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq.); and (5) respondent failed to timely file and serve the judgment of dismissal and notice of entry of judgment, the court should not have entered judgment while her motion for reconsideration was pending, and her due process rights were infringed. We will aff

Defendant and appellant Luis Marquez Gonzalez pled no contest to one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and the trial court imposed a four-year prison term. Appellant appealed and his counsel asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable sentencing or other post-plea issues. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Subsequent to entry of judgment, appellant unsuccessfully moved below for an award of additional pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in a second appeal. This court consolidated the two appeals for purposes of decision. We now affirm the judgment and denial of the motion for additional custody credits.

Harvey G. Ottovich, Karen Rayl, Randy Ottovich, and Mark Ottovich (collectively appellants) appeal from a judgment, entered after a 14-day hearing, granting Seaboard Surety Company’s (Seaboard) Probate Code section 850 petition to quiet title two properties in the name of their father’s estate.
Appellants raise numerous issues: (1) Seaboard lacked standing to file a section 850 petition; (2) there is no substantial evidence that appellants acted in bad faith or in willful disregard of probate court orders; (3) the probate court erred in allowing Seaboard to amend its petition to conform to proof; (4) the court abused its discretion in striking appellants’ new trial motion; (5) the court erred in awarding Seaboard attorney fees; (6) the court erred in including money, stocks and annuities in the estate; (7) the court erred in including rent from one of the properties in the estate; and (8) the court erred in rejecting Mark’s and Harvey’s “resulting trust” claims. N

Karen Rayl, Harvey Ottovich, and Randy Ottovich (collectively appellants) appeal from orders of the probate court removing them as the executors of the estate of their father, Jack Ottovich, and appointing a special administrator. We affirm.

Plaintiff Andrea Mangan lost her San Francisco home in foreclosure, wrongfully she contends, and brought this suit against her lender and others initially in an effort to prevent her eviction from the property and then, afterwards, to regain possession of her home. She amended her complaint five times, ultimately dropping all of the originally named defendants and proceeding solely against the property’s current owners and their lender. Those purchasers had no role in the allegedly wrongful foreclosure and acquired the home some years later, while this lawsuit was pending, from the bankruptcy estate of Mangan’s foreclosing lender.