Filed 1/28/15 Wilson v. Super. Ct. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

JOYCE WILSON et al.,
Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent;
ALICE ALONZO,
Real Party in Interest. B256026
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC508742)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for wr it of mandate. Randolph Rogers, Judge. Petition denied. Ferguson Case Orr Paters on, Wendy C. Lascher, Anna L. Bijelic and Lauren C. Rad, for Petitioners. No appearance by Respondent. Rehwald Glasner & Chaleff, William Rehw ald and Kevin Rehwald, for Real Party
in Interest.

_____________ ____________2 Joyce and Breanna Wilson ar e defendants in a civil action filed by Alice Alonzo alleging that when Joyce and her ex-husband Stephen Wilson 1 divorced, he fraudulently
transferred his interest in co mmunity property to Joyce, in an effort to prevent Alonzo from recovering court-ordered restitution a nd a potential damages award in Alonzo’s ongoing personal injury lawsuit against Stephen. The trial court denied Joyce’s motion to quash a deposition subpoena by Alonzo reques ting that Stephen’s divorce lawyer produce
a confidential marital settlement agreement (CMSA) entered into by Joyce and Stephen in or about July/August 2011. Joyce filed a petition for writ of mandate arguing that the CMSA was prepared in the course of me diation and protected from disclosure by Evidence Code section 1119, and asking us to or der the trial court to vacate its order and
to direct the trial court to enter an order quashing Alonzo’s request for production of the CMSA. We issued an order to show cause and stayed further proceedings in the trial

court. After oral argument, on September 11, 2014, we vacated subm ission and ordered
the trial court to hold a hear ing within 60 days and make a factual determination whether mediation took place and, if so, when it occu rred. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on November 14, 2014. After hearing, the trial cour t filed a comprehensive order on December 18, 2014, stating that “a ‘mediati on’ did not take place within the meaning of Evidence Code §1115(a).” The order conc luded that the evidence supported a finding that Joyce had begun a collaborative law pro cess to obtain a divorce from Stephen, but subsequently abandoned the co llaborative law dispute resolu tion process because it could not produce a confidential settlement agreement. As the orde r states: “[T]he evidence reflects that the whole purpose of at least os tensibly using the mediation process was to facilitate confidential transfers of Stephen Paul Wilson’s assets to Joyce Wilson, the mother of his two children, in order to put t hose assets out of the reach of [Alonzo] that he was charged with, and ultim ately convicted of, torturing and attempting to murder.” Although there was some eviden ce that someone was retain ed to be denominated the

1 We use the Wilsons’ first names to prevent confusion. No disr espect is intended.3 “‘mediator,’” “no evidence was presented that established that the ‘mediator’ in any way
facilitated the communications be tween the parties ‘to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.’”
As the trial court has found that no me diation took place, the CMSA is not protected from disclosure. Joyce’s motion to quash was properly denied.
DISPOSITION The petition for writ of mandate is denied, and the stay is vacated.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

CHANEY, Acting P. J.

MILLER, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Cour t, assigned by the Ch ief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.