Filed 5/14/15 Marriage of Goveia and Kasberger 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 the Marriage of JOSEPH GOVEIA and LINDA E. KASBERGER.

JOSEPH GOVEIA,

Appellant,

v. LINDA E. KASBERGER,

Respondent. G051329

(Super. Ct. No. 07D005001)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Orange County, Renee Wilson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21 .) Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Castle & Monarch, Michael J. Monarch, Snell & Wilmer, Richard A. Derevan, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Robin Meadow and Robert A. Olson for Appellant. Law Offices of Steven E. Briggs, Stev en E. Briggs and Luis A. McKissick for Respondent.2 * * *

THE COURT: * The parties to this ma rital dissolution proceeding bifurcated the issue of marital status for separate judgment and trial from reserved issues c oncerning the division of marital property. While the family law c ourt has issued a final judgment on marital status, the court has yet to issue a final ju dgment on the reserved issues, although it has issued a judgment which bears the labe l “Judgment on Reserved Issues.” Out of an excess of caution, the hu sband has taken an appeal from this “judgment,” although both spouses contend such an appeal is premature because the trial court has yet to hold further hearings and issu e a final judgment concerning the reserved

matters. We agree and dismiss the appeal fro m what amounts to a preliminary and interlocutory order. Appellate review mu st await further proceedings and a final judgment.

BACKGROUND In April 2010, the family court file d a status only judgment of dissolution between appellant (Husband) and respondent (Wife). The par ties subsequently stipulated to appoint a referee (retired Judge Thomas Murphy) to determine an accounting for the use of community funds, w ith the family court (Commissioner Renee Wilson) to

determine contested issues of breach of fiduciary duties and sanctions. On November 21, 2014, Commissioner Wilson signed and filed a document entitled “Judgment on reserved is sues.” The judgment an d accompanying statement of decision endeavored to resolve disputed issu es concerning Husband’s alleged breach of his fiduciary obligations to Wife by failing to disclose a loan in excess of $1 million to Husband’s business partner, as well as the partner’s alleged partial repayment, among

* Before O’Leary, P.J., Beds worth, J., and Fybel, J.3 other matters involving Husband’s fiduciary breaches in the investment of community funds and in payments to Husband. Howe ver, the November 21, 2014 judgment left numerous issues remaining for resolution, including characterizing and valuing various community assets and equalizing the division of community property as part of a final accounting, as well as issues concerning the amount of sanctions and attorney fees and costs. The November 21, 2014 judgment ma de no direction for payment of money by

Husband. Given the “dire consequences of not filing a timely appeal,” Husband chose to “er[r] on the side of caution” by filing “what we believe is in fact a premature appeal.” Husband, however, requested that this court address the issue of appealability “as soon as possible.” On March 13, 2015, this court, by order, informed the parties that it was considering dismissing the appeal for lack of an appealable order, and invited letter briefs on the subject. In her letter brief, Wife agreed that the November 21, 2014 judgment was not appealable. “Commissioner Wilson still ne eds to make final orders regarding the attorney’s fees, sanctions and/or penalties against [Husband]. Judge Murphy still needs

to review evidence of accountings being completed by expert s retained by each party, as well as testimony of witnesses, before he can make his recommendations as to amounts that are to be charged to each party. Upon completion of all these proceedings the final Judgment will be able to asse ss all amounts chargeable to ea ch party, owed by one party to the other, and how to equalize the division of community property funds currently held

in trust or frozen accounts.”

DISCUSSION The “one final judgment” rule prec ludes an appeal while there are still pending proceedings. “Under California’s ‘one final judgment’ rule, a judgment that fails4 to dispose of all the causes of action pe nding between the parties is generally not appealable.” ( Kurwa v. Kislinger (2013) 57 Cal.4t h 1097, 1100.) This holds true even for a postjudgm ent order that is preliminary or preparatory to later proceedings. It does not become ripe for appeal until the anticipated judgment is finally issued. ( In re Marriage of Corona (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216 [dismissing postjudgment appeal where family court anticipated further judicial proceedings to adopt referee’s findings following accounting].) “[T]he policies underlying the final judgmen t rule—avoiding piecemeal dispositions and multiple appeals, reducing uncertainty or delay in the trial court, and obtaini ng a single complete and final resolution of the issues presen ted—are best served by denying appellate jurisdiction under the pres ent circumstances.” ( Id. at p. 1219.)

DISPOSITION In the absence of a final, appealab le judgment between the parties, the appeal is dismissed. In the interests of ju stice, the parties will bear their own costs on appeal.