Filed 12/1/20 Marriage of Cunningham CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Marriage of JENNIFER 

and JOHN PAUL 

CUNNINGHAM.

2d Civil No. B303493

(Super. Ct. No. D372438)

(Ventura County)

JENNIFER CUNNINGHAM,

 Appellant,

v.

JOHN PAUL CUNNINGHAM,

 Respondent.

Jennifer Cunningham appeals from the trial court’s 

postjudgment order granting John Paul Cunningham’s motion to 

dismiss her request for an order finding him in contempt of 

court.

1 We affirm.

1 We use the parties’ first names for clarity.
2

Jennifer and John married in 1997, and separated in 

2015. In 2016 John received a federal income tax refund of 

$5,700 for overpayments made in tax year 2015. Jennifer became 

aware of the refund in 2018 while she and John were discussing a 

settlement agreement to divide their community assets and 

liabilities. The two signed the agreement later that day. 

One of the provisions of the settlement agreement 

provided that Jennifer and John would share any tax refund 

equally. Another provided that they each waived any “[c]laim[] 

for reimbursement from the other [p]arty . . . regarding . . . 

payments made to or on behalf of the [p]arties or the community 

prior or subsequent to the [d]ate of separation.” A third provided 

that they each waived “any claim against the other [p]arty for the 

receipt of community property funds after separation[,] or for the 

expenditure of community property after separation, or both.” 

The agreement was incorporated into the final judgment in 

Jennifer and John’s dissolution action. 

Six weeks after entry of judgment, Jennifer requested 

an order finding John in contempt of court based on his failure to 

remit her portion of the $5,700 tax refund. The trial court 

granted John’s motion to dismiss Jennifer’s request, finding that 

she knew about the refund when she entered into the 2018 

settlement agreement. It also concluded that she waived any 

claim to the refund when she signed the agreement. 

Jennifer does not challenge the trial court’s finding 

that she knew about the tax refund when she entered into the 

settlement agreement. Nor does she substantively challenge the 

court’s conclusion that she waived her claim to the refund in that

agreement. Because it is supported by substantial evidence, we 

are bound by the finding that Jennifer knew about the refund
3

when she signed the agreement. (See In re Marriage of Bonds

(2000) 24 Cal.4th 1, 37-38, superseded by statute on other 

grounds as stated in In re Marriage of Cadwell-Faso & 

Faso (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 945, 958.) We also conclude that the 

court below correctly interpreted the agreement since its 

interpretation gave effect to the agreement as a whole. (See Civ. 

Code, § 1641.) 

Because she knew about the $5,700 tax refund when 

she signed the settlement agreement, Jennifer waived any claim 

to it. Her request that the trial court find John in contempt 

therefore lacked a legal basis. The court thus properly granted 

his motion to dismiss the request. (See Board of Supervisors v.

Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1737 [punishment for 

contempt requires violation of specific order].)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order granting John’s motion to 

dismiss Jennifer’s request to find him in contempt of court, 

entered December 24, 2019, is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
John R. Smiley, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Jennifer Cunningham, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.