Opinion
B333947
09-20-2024
VIDALA AARONOFF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CURTIS R. OLSON, Defendant and Respondent.
Vidala Aaronoff, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. ENARA LAW and Justin J. Eballar for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Order Filed Date: 10/8/24
APPEAL from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. 17SMRO00308 Emily T. Spear and Gary C. Eto, Judges. Reversed.
Vidala Aaronoff, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
ENARA LAW and Justin J. Eballar for Defendant and Respondent.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 20, 2024, be modified as follows:
On page 2, the second paragraph under subsection A of the FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND is modified to change the words "no longer belonged to her, but" in the second sentence to "had been transferred" so the first and second sentences of that paragraph now read:
While the appeal was pending, Olson attempted to enforce his award of attorney fees. Aaronoff resisted, claiming she was indigent and the condominium in which she resided had been transferred to the ATW Trust. (Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388.)
Appellant Aaronoff's petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in the judgment.
LUI, P. J.
This is the latest appeal stemming from a particularly acrimonious nearly 10-year-old feud between Vidala Aaronoff and Curtis R. Olson. Their dispute began with the parties' dueling petitions for a civil harassment restraining order as neighbors in a condominium complex. That led to protracted litigation over attorney fees and ownership of the condominium in which Aaronoff resided. Aaronoff now appeals from the trial court's orders partially denying her request to correct clerical error in four February 28, 2020 minute orders. We reverse as void the postjudgment orders made in violation of the automatic stay provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 916.
Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Pertinent Earlier Proceedings
After both parties successfully defended against the other's restraining order petition, they were each awarded attorney fees. Aaronoff timely appealed on June 6, 2019, from the order to pay Olson's attorney fees (June 6, 2019 appeal). (Aaronoff v. Olson (Jan. 24, 2023, B295388) [nonpub. opn.].)
While the appeal was pending, Olson attempted to enforce his award of attorney fees. Aaronoff resisted, claiming she was indigent and the condominium in which she resided no longer belonged to her, but to the ATW Trust. (Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388.) In response, Olson filed an ex parte application to add the ATW Trust and its trustees as judgment debtors, which the trial court granted on November 6, 2020. (Ibid.) There was no appeal from the amended attorney fees order. (Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388.)
Our opinion resolving the June 6, 2019 appeal was filed on January 24, 2023, in which we concluded that amending the attorney fees order of November 6, 2020, was reversible error. (Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388.) Pursuant to section 916, the operative June 6, 2019 appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to subsequently add the ATW trust and trustees as judgment debtors. (Ibid.)
This was one of six consolidated appeals in Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388). The appeals pertained to the parties' litigation from approximately 2015 through 2020. Other appeals have followed.
B. February 28, 2020 Hearing and Orders
Olson continued his efforts to enforce his attorney fee award before Judge Emily T. Spear. Aaronoff continued to resist. (Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388.) On February 28, 2020, Judge Spear conducted a hearing on (1) Olson's application and order for appearance and examination of a judgment debtor, (2) Aaronoff's motion for a protective order to stay all discovery by Olson pending the June 6, 2019 appeal, (3) Aaronoff's motion to set aside an order denying her prior request to disqualify Judge Spears, and (4) an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against an alleged ATW trustee for misuse of the discovery process (§ 2023.030).
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Spear granted Olson's application and order for appearance and examination of a judgment debtor, denied Aaronoff's motions for a protective order and to set aside the earlier order denying recusal, and ordered the imposition of $5,000 in sanctions, which Judge Spear "transferred" from the alleged ATW trustee to Aaronoff. The record contains the rulings as four separate minute orders all dated February 28, 2020. Each minute order showed Judge Spear found Aaronoff had "fraudulently transferred assets to the trust to hide money from debt collection," and "there is no trust."
Olson's respondent's brief is premised on Aaronoff's having failed "to include any of the February 28, 2020 orders in the Clerk's Transcript." Olson mistakes the record on appeal. To the extent Olson is asserting the motions or orders underlying the four February 28, 2020 orders are missing, they are contained in records filed in the prior appeals.
C. Motion and Hearing to Correct Clerical Error
On April 28, 2020, Aaronoff filed a propria persona motion to correct clerical error in the February 28, 2020 minute orders as permitted by section 473, subdivision (d). She argued the above quoted findings in the four orders do not reflect Judge Spear's oral pronouncements. Aaronoff also asserted Judge Spears "had no jurisdiction and no statute of frauds basis to rule on the trust" and the errors "wrongfully and unfairly slanders" her. Aaronoff asked the trial court "to vacate and replace the four minute orders dated February 28, 2020 by amendment."
Following an August 25, 2023 hearing, the trial court (Judge Gary C. Eto) granted the motion in part by substituting the following language: "The court finds there is no trust. And in the event, respectively [sic , the trust comes in and produces documents, the court is going to find [Aaronoff] fraudulently transferred assets to the trust to hide money from debt collection."
The reporter's transcript of the February 28, 2020 hearing indicates Judge Spear said "prospectively" rather than "respectively." The April 25, 2023 minute order of Judge Eto's hearing uses the word "prospectively."
Judge Eto declined Aaronoff's request to set aside the four orders, explaining it was beyond the scope of her motion to correct clerical error.
The record also contains a minute order dated August 30, 2023, for proceedings entitled, "Non-Appearance Case Review." This order is identical to the April 25, 2023 minute order showing the correction to the clerical error in the February 28, 2020 orders.
Aaronoff filed a timely notice of appeal from the August 25 and 30, 2023 orders.
DISCUSSION
The main focus of Aaronoff's opening brief is the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, not the correction of clerical error. "The lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal." (Alliance for California Business v. State Air Resources Bd. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1060.)" 'Lack of jurisdiction in its most fundamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.' [Citation.] When a court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense, an ensuing judgment is void, and 'thus vulnerable to direct or collateral attack at any time.'" (People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653, 660.)
Relying on our opinion in Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388, Aaronoff argues the February 28, 2020 orders are void because they were issued in violation of the automatic stay provision of section 916 triggered by the June 6, 2019 appeal. We agree.
Under section 916, "the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order." (§ 916, subd. (a).) "The purpose of the automatic stay . . . 'is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided'" and to" 'prevent[ ] the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.'" (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189; LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 862, 872 [§ 916 precludes the trial court from enforcing, vacating, or modifying an appealed judgment].) "[S]ection 916, as a matter of logic and policy, divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal-i.e., jurisdiction in its fundamental sense." (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, supra, at p. 198.) Accordingly, "any subsequent trial court proceedings on matters 'embraced' in or 'affected' by the appeal [are] void-and not merely voidable." (Ibid.; id. at p. 196 ["any judgment or order rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is 'void on its face' "].)
As we determined in our earlier opinion, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the attorney fee order because the pending appeal from that order triggered section 916's automatic stay. (Aaronoff v. Olson, supra, B295388.) Olson's continued efforts to enforce his fee award at the February 28, 2020 hearing were matters "embraced in" or "affected by" the June 6, 2019 appeal from that award. "[A]ny 'proceedings taken after the notice of appeal was filed are a nullity'" and "void- . . . not merely voidable." (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 197-198.)Accordingly, we reverse the February 28, 2020 orders.
We do not reach the issue of Judge Spear's personal jurisdiction over the alleged trustee. It is beyond the scope of the appeal and Aaronoff has not shown she has standing to raise personal jurisdiction objection on behalf of the trustee.
DISPOSITION
The orders of February 28, 2020 are reversed. Olson is to bear costs on appeal.
We concur: CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT