Opinion
F084709
08-13-2024
In re the Marriage of GREGORY WRIGHT and ARISHMA WRIGHT. v. ARISHMA WRIGHT, Respondent. GREGORY WRIGHT, Appellant,
Gregory Wright, in pro. per., for Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, No. FL-21-001943 Alan K. Cassidy, Judge.
Gregory Wright, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance made by Respondent.
OPINION
SMITH, J.
This is a marriage dissolution matter. The parties are Gregory Wright and Arishma Wright. Gregory Wright appeals the custody orders entered by the family court after a trial on the issue of custody. He also appeals the family court's order to the effect that in violating multiple court orders, Gregory Wright forfeited his interest in certain funds he obtained when he unilaterally sold, during the pendency of the proceedings below, the parties' former residence (without giving notice to or obtaining the consent of, Arishma Wright). Gregory Wright is self-represented on appeal; Arishma Wright did not file a responsive brief. We affirm the family court's orders.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Gregory Wright (Gregory) and Arishma Wright (Arishma) were married on August 3, 2019, and separated on August 5, 2021. They had two children: L.W. (born in 2020) and E.W. (born in 2021). On August 2, 2021, Arishma filed a request for domestic violence restraining order, along with a request for a child custody and visitation order, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. The court issued, on August 4, 2021, a temporary restraining order to Arishma against Gregory; the court also temporarily granted sole legal and physical custody of the children to Arishma.
On August 27, 2021, Gregory filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Stanislaus County Superior Court and requested joint legal and physical custody of the children. On August 30, 2021, Gregory filed a response to Arishma's pending request for a long-term domestic violence restraining order. A hearing on the domestic violence restraining order took place on December 16, 2021. After that hearing, the same day, the family court ordered; "At the request of Respondent, Arishma Wright, the court drops her Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order. The court vacates the Temporary Restraining Order issued August 4, 2021 in which Arishma Wright is the Protected Party and Gregory Wright is the Restrained Party." Additional factual and procedural details regarding the issues on appeal are set forth below.
DISCUSSION
I. Family Court's Order To Effect Gregory Wright Forfeited His Interest In Certain Proceeds From The Unilateral Sale of Former Residence
Gregory Wright challenges the family court's order, issued on May 5, 2022, to the effect that in violating multiple court orders, he forfeited his interest in certain funds from the sale of property during the pendency of the instant proceedings. We affirm.
A. Procedural History
On August 27, 2021, Gregory filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. The summons was issued that same day. The summons included "Standard Family Law Restraining Orders" (the record reflects the parties and the family court referred to these restraining orders interchangeably as Standard Family Law Restraining Orders and Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders (ATROs)). (Some capitalization omitted.) The ATROs provided, among other provisions, that "[s]tarting immediately" the parties were "restrained" from "transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property, real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities of life." The ATROs "immediately" took effect against both parties upon initiation of the action.
On February 7, 2022, counsel for Arishma wrote an email to Gregory's attorney, as follows: "Good morning. I was just informed that in violation of the ATROs, your client has listed and appears to have accepted an offer for the community property residence located at 2444 Bungalow Lane, Turlock, California. As your client is well aware, the ATROs issued in this matter completely preclude this activity to occur. Please advise your client accordingly so that the listing is cancelled as well as the sale. If written confirmation of this is not provided by close of business, please be aware that a Request for Order seeking Temporary Orders to stay the sale will be sought along with attorneys fees and costs."
The same day, counsel for Gregory responded, via email: "We have called him and left a message with him regarding this issue. Our understanding is that what community property interest there may be in the residence is very small, given the shortterm of the marriage and the fact that Mr. Wright owned the residence prior thereto." [¶ ] We would propose that, if the sale goes through, the funds be placed into a trust account pending further court order or agreement of the Parties."
On February 9, 2022, counsel for Arishma replied, via email: "Please see the attached proposed Stipulation and Order for your review with your client and signatures. If this is not executed prior to close of business today, a[n] Ex Parte request will be made to stay the sale of the property. [¶ ] Thank you."
On February 18, 2022, Arishma filed an ex parte request for emergency orders. The order requested was as follows: "Stay sale of real property residence located at 2444 Bungalow Lane, Turlock, California, or in the alternative, all funds from sale of residence to be placed in a blocked interest bearing account at Bank of Stockton pending further Order of the Court." In a declaration in support of her ex parte request, Arishma attested: "On or about August 27, 2021, Petitioner, Gregory Wright, initiated a dissolution of marriage proceeding. The dissolution of marriage action is still pending. On or about January 22, 2022, without notice to me, Petitioner entered into a listing agreement, listing [for sale] the community property residence that was purchased during our marriage .... Petitioner did not receive my written consent to list the property for sale, nor am I agreeable to the sale of the residence. [¶ ] I became aware that Petitioner subsequently accepted an offer and entered into a contract for sale for the real property residence located at 2444 Bungalow Lane, Turlock, California, on or about January 29, 2022. No notice was provided to either myself or my counsel of this either."
On February 23, 2022, the family court entered the requested temporary emergency orders regarding the property sale (see below) and set the matter for hearing on March 15, 2022. On March 11, 2022, Gregory's counsel filed a responsive declaration to Arishma's request for order related to the sale. In the declaration, Gregory's attorney attested as follows: "We were former attorneys for petitioner Mr. Wright; we substituted back in this matter on a limited scope representation several days ago, whereby our agreement with the client is to take care of this matter at issue regarding the house sale proceeds, where Mr. Wright sold a house, albeit in his name only as to the grant deed and underlying debt, in violation of ATROS, and to complete the dissolution."
Gregory's attorney further declared, in response to Arishma's request for order related to the property sale: "The parties were married on 8/3/2019 and separated on 8/5/21, a marriage of 2 years; [Gregory] purchased the house on 4/17/20; hence [Arishma] would be entitled to a community interest in the sale proceeds of the residence [as] calculated under Moore-Marsden; which per the attached calculation amounts to ½ of $11,895 or $5,948 (see attached.)." Gregory's attorney added in the declaration: "[Arishma] had exclusive possession of the subject residence at 2444 Bungalow Lane, Turlock for the months of August, September and October 2021, and [Gregory] paid the mortgage payment of $2,602 for the three months totaling $2,602 times 3 or $7,806, where the FRV [fair rental value] is at least $2,600 per month, meaning that any CP interest of [Arishma] is more than offset by the FRV while [Arishma] had exclusive possession of the residence." Gregory's attorney concluded in his declaration: "That is, any net proceeds from the sale should be allocated to [Gregory] in full; and [Gregory] is entitled to a credit of: $7,806 less $5,948 or $1,858."
Among the exhibits attached to the declaration of Gregory's attorney are a grant deed in Gregory's name for the house, recorded on April 17, 2020, and a quit claim deed for the same property signed by Arishma on March 19, 2020 and recorded on April 17, 2020. A Moore-Marsden calculation sheet also attached to the declaration of Gregory's attorney reflects that Gregory made $9,653.42 in loan principal payments for the house with community funds.
The house-sale-proceeds matter was heard on March 15, 2022. Following the hearing, the same day, the family court ordered:
"1. Parties are ordered to exchange through counsel information and documentation regarding their positions related to the community and separate property interests in the sales proceeds.
"2. Court Orders that the Temporary Order continues regarding placement of the sales proceeds into a blocked interest bearing trust account pending further Order of the Court. Petitioner indicates that the proceeds are in his possession. Petitioner is ordered to deposit those funds into a blocked interest bearing trust account within 48 hours.
"3. Court reserves on other issues raised in Respondent's Request for Order regarding sanctions, violation of ATROs, attorneys fees and costs."
The court set a further hearing on the issues on April 21, 2022.
Thereafter, following the April 21, 2022 hearing, the same day the family court issued another order. The order provided, in pertinent part:
"1. Petitioner, Gregory Wright, is ordered to reimburse funds in the amount of $107,156.38, no later than May 4, 2022, at 5:00 p.m., by placing them in the blocked interest bearing account held at Bank of Stockton, established on 4/20/22.
"2. Petitioner, Gregory Wright, is ordered to deposit the funds in his possession, in the amount of $36,000.00 in the blocked interest bearing account held at Bank of Stockton, no later than 4/21/22 at 5:00 p.m. Counsel for Petitioner shall provide to Counsel for Respondent a receipt showing such deposit by 5:00 p.m. on 4/22/22.
"3. If Petitioner, Gregory Wright, through his counsel does not provide copy of deposit of funds by 5:00 p.m. on 4/22/22, counsel for Respondent is invited to request an Ex Parte hearing for a body attachment at which time a warrant for Petitioner, Gregory Wright's, arrest shall issue for failure to follow court orders. [¶ ] . . .[¶ ]
"6. Petitioner, Gregory Wright, shall provide seven (7) days prior to continued hearing written proof of use of funds from the sale of the residence, documentation showing the account in which the funds were deposited, payment of debt and acquisition of assets with the funds.
"7. At the time of the continued hearing, should Petitioner, Gregory Wright, not deposit the full amount of $107,156.38 into the blocked interest bearing trust account at Bank of Stockton, the court shall order that Petitioner forfeits any and all interest in the $107,156.38 and the entire amount will be awarded to Respondent, Arishma Wright.
"8. The court directs both parties to sign this Order, acknowledging their understanding and awareness of the Orders issued.
"9. The court reserves on Respondent's request for attorney fees and costs as well as sanctions."
The parties and their attorneys signed the court's order. The court set a further hearing on the issues on May 5, 2022. The following day, April 22, 2022, Gregory substituted in to represent himself in the matter.
On April 26, 2022, the family court held a hearing in the matter. Following the hearing, the same day the family court ordered:
"1. Court calls case at 10:24 a.m., Petitioner Gregory Wright not appearing. Respondent Arishma Wright not present but present by counsel, Lindsey A. Bannerman.
"2. Ms. Bannerman recites email communication received from Gregory Wright. "3. Court issues a Warrant of Attachment for Gregory Wright . . .. in the amount of $10,000.00."
The matter next came on for hearing on May 5, 2022. After the hearing, the same day the court ordered:
"Petitioner, Gregory Wright, present In Pro Per. Respondent, Arishma Wright, present with her attorney of record, Lindsey A. Bannerman.
"1. The court finds that as the ATROs were acknowledged by Petitioner and that the ATROs restrict party's use/distribution and waste of community property assets as well as the Order issued by the Court on 2/22/22 ordering to deposit all monies received from sale of residence as well as order made 3/15/22 ordering to deposit all monies received from sale of residence.
"2. The court finds that Petitioner has violated these orders, so from the original $107,156.38, the court will find that he did use funds in the amount of $7,203.81 (consisting of $2,703.01 for fees owed to Turlock Christian and his representation of $4,500 was paid for outstanding community property debt on his credit card), leaving a balance of $99,952.57 from the sales proceeds. The court finds that he deposited $35,985.30 into the blocked interest-bearing Bank of Stockton Account, leaving an outstanding balance owed to the community of $63,967.27, which he has not produced. As such, Petitioner forfeits his community property interest in that amount which still remains owing to Respondent.
The record on appeal does not reflect any oral arguments made to the family court regarding the parties' respective separate property and/or community property interests in the Bungalow Lane house and the house sale proceeds at issue. Similarly, the record on appeal does not reflect the family court's determinations as to these issues.
"3. Counsel for Respondent shall submit documentation demonstrating time spent on issue associated with sales proceeds and the court will consider further Respondent's request for sanctions and attorneys fees and costs. The court reserves, at this time, on Respondent's request for attorneys fees and costs and sanctions. [¶ ] . . . [¶ ]
"5. The sum of $15,000.00 shall be removed from the blocked account at Bank of Stockton payable to Lindsey A. Bannerman FBO Arish[m]a Wright. No other monies shall be disbursed from this account unless there is a formal Stipulation and Order signed by the court or the result of an Order issued in Court. [¶ ] . . . [¶ ]
"7. The Warrant of Attachment previously issued by the court for Petitioner, Gregory Wright, is recalled and quashed." (Italics added.)
B. Analysis
Gregory first argues: "Appellant has the right to sell his sole and separate property under the necessities of life clause of the dissolution ATROS." (Some capitalization omitted.) He elaborates:
"Dissolution ATROs restrains both parties from selling any property, community or separate, without the written consent of the other party or order of the court EXCEPT for the necessities of life (Ca Family Code sec. 2040(a)(2)(A)). Appellant sold his home constant with this exception. Appellant also informed his counsel he is selling his home under this exception. Appellant listed his home for sale publicly, online, with a for-sale sign in the front yard on January 22, 2022. The home sale closed on February 18, 2022. [Citation.] This exception empowers Appellant to make this unilateral decision with good cause. Since the necessities of life exception can be exercised unilaterally, it implies that upon challenge of Appellant[']s decision, Appellant would have the opportunity to present evidence supporting the decision. This never happened. Appellant was denied a trial to bring forth evidence supporting this ATROS Exception; and also to defend himself against the Alleged Violations of court orders during the May 5, 2022 Hearing."
Gregory appears to be asking this court to overturn or vacate the family court's order of May 5, 2022, either entirely or in part, and to remand for a trial regarding whether he violated the ATROs issued at the inception of this matter. Gregory's argument challenging the court's May 5, 2022 order is not supported by necessary citations to the record, requisite legal authorities; or adequate legal analysis. (City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 ["any reference [to a matter in the record] in [a litigant's] brief must be supported by a citation]; Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 ["Mere suggestions of error without supporting argument or authority other than general abstract principles do not properly present grounds for appellate review. The court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error."].)
Further, the record on appeal does not include a reporter's transcript of the May 5, 2022 hearing on the issues underlying the challenged order. Consequently, we cannot discern what requests, representations, or concessions were made by the parties in court or how the court dealt with them. In light of Gregory's conclusory and unsupported assertions, we conclude he has not affirmatively demonstrated the family court erred. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ["[I]t is appellant's burden to affirmatively show error. [Citation.] To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error."].)
Next, Gregory contends: "The Court orders regarding the return of sale proceeds were impossible to comply with and designed as such." (Some capitalization omitted.) Gregory proceeds to make several rambling assertions, without any citations to the record or to applicable authorities. For example, Gregory asserts: "On May 5, 2022 respondent[']s counsel makes various orders that are a result of unfounded-alleged ATROS violations, and allegations of violations for court orders for failure to deposit sale proceeds in a trust, when those orders were structured for appellant to not be able to achieve/comply with them. The orders were structured in a manner that would eventually result in respondent[']s counsel walking away with Appellant's sole and separate property. A criminal couldn't have created a better extortion scheme for $107,000." Gregory concludes: "Regarding the Alleged ATROS violation, Appellant requests the Appellate Court to Order a Trial to be held so Appellant can present evidence and a defense against the alleged ATROS violation, where he will contend that he was never in violation of ATROS due to the Necessities of Life clause of dissolution ATROS."
Gregory 's claims are unsupported by adequate legal argument and requisite citations to the record. His claims therefore fail as improperly raised. Indeed, we conclude he has waived his claims on appeal. (Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 ["We consider all points asserted in this appeal to be forfeited as unsupported by 'adequate factual or legal analysis.' "]; Cahill v. San Diego Gas &Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 [" 'Appellate briefs must provide argument and legal authority for the positions taken. "When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived."' "].)
II. Family Court's Custody Order
Gregory challenges the family court's custody order. We affirm.
A. Procedural History
The family court entered, on February 15, 2022, a custody order regarding the Wrights' two minor children. The custody order provided, in pertinent part:
"1. The following custody and visitation orders are imposed by the Court based upon the recommendation of the child custody counselor. This order shall supersede all prior orders.
"2. The parties shall have joint legal custody with the Mother having sole physical custody.
"3. The parties shall arrange care, custody, and control as they can agree and, if there is no agreement, then as follows.
"4. The Mother shall have all non-designated time with the children.
"5. The Father shall have care, custody, and control on each Saturday from 8 a.m. until 5 pm the same day.
"6. The Father shall have care, custody, and control on each Wednesday from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. the same day. [¶ ] .. [¶ ]
"21. The parties .. shall attend Dr. Weston Lange .. The focus of the counseling shall be co-parenting....
"22. The matter is continued to 5/2/2022 at 10:30 a.m. for long cause hearing on the Father's objection to the recommendation of the child custody counselor."
Thereafter, the long cause contested hearing on the issue of custody was continued to July 7, 2022. In a minute order entered on July 7, 2022, the family court noted that a court trial took place on the issue of custody. Gregory testified on his own behalf and Arishma testified on her own behalf; each party's counsel presented a closing argument. The minute order further provides: "Counsel and parties settle the contested issues. [¶ ] Counsel write up the agreement. [¶ ] Court orders new custody and visitation orders ("pinks") to be generated and mailed to the parties. All exhibits returned to the offering party."
The family court entered the following custody order on July 7, 2022: "Following a contested hearing on Father's objection to the CCRC's [Child Custody Recommended Counseling program] recommended child custody orders, it is ordered that the Findings and Order After Hearing dated February 15, 2022, shall remain in full force and effect except as modified herein. New pink orders shall issue:
"1. Paragraph 6 shall be modified to read 'The Father shall have care, custody and control on each Wednesday from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. the same day. '
"2. Paragraph 21 shall be modified to include the following: 'The parties are ordered to re-engage in counseling services with Dr. Lange....'
"The parties stipulate to the return of exhibits to the offering party."
B. Analysis
Gregory challenges the family court's July 7, 2022 custody order. First, Gregory argues: "The trial court erred keeping Appellant at 10 hrs per week with his children, with sole physical custody to Respondent. No reasonable or rational person or Judge would . . . have come to that conclusion. Unfortunately it happened, therefore the July 7, 2022 Child Custody ruling must be overturned and returned to the family's standard as a separated couple where each party has a close approximate of 84 hours per week."
Second, Gregory argues the court should have granted "[j]oint [c]ustody" under Family Code section 3040, subdivision (a)(1), "[after Appellant defeated the fraudulent DVTRO both [in] August [2021] and December [2021]." Gregory adds, "if the court had to grant custody to either parent," it should have granted custody to him under Family Code section 3040, subdivision (a)(1) because he was "more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent." Gregory concludes, "[t]he July 7, 2022 Child Custody order must be overturned and returned to the family's standard as a separated couple where each party has a close approximate of 84 hours per week."
Third, Gregory contends: "Appellant is a Male. In the State of California, the trial court shall not consider the sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation of a parent, legal guardian, or relative from receiving custody ... Sexist assumptions that males can't or shouldn't be caregivers to their children are prohibited by law."
Finally, Gregory contends: "Appellant defeated Respondent's fraudulent DVTRO both [in] August [2021] and December [2021] . the court erred by not returning to the standard of Joint Custody, and the parties standard of equal physical custody."
Gregory's arguments are not adequately supported by citations to the record, citations to applicable authorities, and factual and legal analysis. The record on appeal does not contain a reporter's transcript of the trial on the issue of custody. The record on appeal does not contain any statement of decision explaining the bases of the family court's custody determination. Moreover, the record indicates the parties settled the contested issues at the conclusion of the trial. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology &Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 948 [" 'In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a party ordinarily must raise the objection in the trial court ... [and] must cite to the record showing exactly where the objection was made.' ") Under these circumstances, we decline to disturb the family court's custody determination.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Each party to bear his or her own costs.
WE CONCUR: POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J. DE SANTOS, J.