Marriage of Folkers
Filed 9/15/06 Marriage of Folkers CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re Marriage of EDGAR R. and KATHY A. FOLKERS. | |
| EDGAR R. FOLKERS, Respondent, v. KATHY A. FOLKERS, Appellant. | G037158 (Super. Ct. No. OCSC NO. D 343745) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard G. Vogl, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Appeal dismissed.
Law Offices of Brian G. Saylin and Brian G. Saylin for Appellant.
Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Doeringer, Jeffrey W. Doeringer; and Lila K. Allen for Respondent.
THE COURT:*
Kathy A. Folkers appeals from two postjudgment orders filed seven months apart in a marital dissolution action. Respondent Edgar R. Folkers moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. He contends the notice of appeal was untimely filed as to one of the postjudgment orders, and appellant lacks standing to appeal from the other. Both contentions are correct and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.
Background
The court entered judgment in this marital dissolution action on August 4, 1993. In September 2002, Edgar initiated a postjudgment action to terminate spousal support. That action eventually grew to include claims for overpayment, credits, and other issues. The court appointed a special master, and on September 8, 2005, the court entered a postjudgment order that constituted a final determination of the issues concerning money owed between the parties. The court approved the special master's final accounting, and ordered Kathy to pay Edgar $159,503. The order decided all other outstanding issues, but continued to another hearing the question of an outstanding balance of $3,900 owed to the special master. Kathy did not file a notice of appeal from this order for the payment of money.
At a hearing on April 7, 2006, the court considered Edgar's request for sanctions against Kathy and for attorney fees, and denied the request in an order filed the same day. The order also noted that the parties had stipulated they would bear equally the fees owed to the special master (the issue reserved from the September 2005 hearing).
On May 31, 2006, Kathy filed a notice of appeal from the April 7, 2006 order denying Edgar's request for sanctions and attorney fees, and also from the September 8, 2005 order for the payment of money.
Discussion
Edgar argues the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because (1) the time has long since run for appealing from the September 8, 2005 order, and (2) Kathy lacks standing to appeal from the April 7, 2006 order because she is not aggrieved by it. Edgar is right on both counts.
1. The September 8, 2005 Order
This order was immediately appealable because it was a final determination of the question of whether Kathy owed money to Edgar. The court's order that she pay him $159, 503 left no related issue to be decided.
â€
