Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re the Marriage of Billie Jo and Scott Shubin. v. Scott Shubin

April 4, 2012

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF BILLIE JO AND SCOTT SHUBIN. BILLIE JO WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT SHUBIN, RESPONDENT.



(Super. Ct. No. SDR0029488)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.

Marriage of Shubin CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Billie Jo Williams (wife) appeals from a trial court order directing her to pay $10,000 in attorney fees to Scott Shubin (husband) as sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271.

Wife contends (1) the sanctions order was inappropriate and contrary to statute because the trial judge had previously been disqualified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, and (2) the sanctions order was unreasonable and burdensome.

We conclude (1) wife abandoned her Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 challenge when she appeared before the trial judge in a subsequent hearing and acquiesced in the trial judge's assumption of jurisdiction, and (2) in this judgment roll appeal, we must presume the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's order, and we find no error on the face of this record.

We will affirm the trial court order.

BACKGROUND

Wife elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the hearing in this matter. This is described as a "judgment roll" appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)

The limited appellate record establishes that husband and wife were married in July 1995. They had one child and separated nearly 12 years later in March 2007. A judgment dissolving the marriage was filed in Placer County Superior Court on August 10, 2009. The judgment included orders regarding custody, support and property division, reserving jurisdiction on the division of debt, tax liability and retirement benefits.

The trial court subsequently heard motions regarding custody, visitation, attorney fees and sanctions. Among other rulings, the trial court denied husband's request to modify custody, adopted the mediator's recommended parenting schedule, ordered a detailed plan for transportation, exchanges, co-parenting, and cooperation, and reserved jurisdiction on attorney fees and sanctions. The trial court also reserved jurisdiction "to impose financial sanctions of a minimum of $100 per occurrence, in addition to any other appropriate orders, for intentional violations by either parent of the parenting plan."

Further proceedings occurred, and further orders were issued, regarding division of property, discovery of financial information, and child support. A judgment was entered regarding division of property.

On November 12, 2010, wife challenged Judge McElhany pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. Judge McElhany granted the challenge and was disqualified "from hearing any further matters in [this] case which involve contested issues of fact or law." Several weeks later, however, husband and wife appeared again in a hearing before Judge McElhany. During that hearing, the trial court ordered wife to pay ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.