Filed 9/30/13 Marriage of Hawatmeh CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re Marriage of SAMI and GHADA

HAWATMEH. B238518

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PD049175)

SAMI HAWATMEH,

Appellant,

v.

GHADA HAWATMEH,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Christine Byrd, Judge. Dismissed.

Leonard Chaitin for App ellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

___________________________________________________2

Appellant Sami Hawatmeh attempts to appeal from a postjudgment order which

set a further hearing date on the status of two pieces of real property. Because the o rder

was preliminary and interlocutory, we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Sami Hawatmeh (Sami) was married to Ghada Hawatmeh (Ghada) in 1990. 1 In

February 2010, Sami filed for divorce. Ghada failed to respond to the petition for

dissolution of marriage, and in April 2010 default was entered. Sami filed a community

and quasi

- community property declaration listing a number of assets and debts. A default

judgment was entered in September 2010, and Sami was allotted an assortment of assets

and debts.

In December 2010, Ghada filed a motion to set aside the judgment. She filed

another motion to set aside the judgment in July 2011. The trial court heard these

motions in November 2011. It denied both motions. The court found, however, that two

pieces of r eal property were not identified in disclosures made by Sami and were not

awarded in the judgment. Therefore, the court found that it had continuing jurisdiction

over the properties pursuant to Family Code section 2556, and it set “the matter for trial

wi th respect to these two properties.” The court stated that if Ghada identified any

additional assets that had not been adjudicated, she could provide notice to Sami of the

assets in advance of the trial. The court declared: “The issues to be tried are t he

characterization and division of any community interest in the identified properties (or in

the proceeds from the sale of the properties), as well as any claims by Respondent of

breach of fiduciary duty in connection with these properties.” The parties were ordered

to engage in mediation, and the court ordered that trial be held on April 2 and 3, 2012.

Sami appealed from the order.

1 We refer to the parties by their first names solely to av oid confusion. No disrespect is intended.3 DISCUSSION

The order that Sami attempts to appeal from is not appealable. It is well

established that an interlocutory de cree is nonappealable. ( In re Marriage of Corona

(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) Postjudgment orders that are preliminary to a later

judgment are not immediately appealable, and do not become ripe for appeal until a later

final order or judgment is r endered. ( Id. at p. 1218; In re Marriage of Ellis (2002) 101

Cal.App.4th 400, 402

- 403.)

The order at issue here merely set a trial date on two pieces of real property that

had not been previously adjudicated. The order did not make any final determina tion

regarding rights, value, or other pertinent matters with respect to these properties. Those

are the sorts of determinations that would be expected to occur at trial, but that have not

occurred yet. The order is therefore preliminary and interlocutor y, and dismissal of the

appeal is appropriate. 2

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

BOREN, P.J.

We concur:

ASHMANN

- GERST, J.

CHAVEZ, J.

2 On September 3, 2013, this Court sent a letter to Sami pursuant to Government Code section 68081 requesting briefing on whether the order was appealable. In his responsive brief, Sami acknowledged that the ord er is not appealable, and instead requested that this Court treat the appeal as a petition for an extraordinary writ. We decline to do. We note, however, that following trial, the matter may be ripe for appeal.