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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JENNIFE R and JOHN PAUL CUNNINGHAM. 2 d Civil No. B303493 (Super. Ct. No. D372438) (Ventura County)

JENNIFER CUNNINGHAM,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN PAUL CUNNINGHAM,

Respondent.

Jennifer Cunningham appeal s from the trial court’s postjudgment order granti ng John Paul Cunningham’s moti on to dismiss her request for an order find ing 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 mad e in tax year 2015. Jennifer became
aware of the refund in 2018 wh ile she and John were discussing a settlement agreement t o divide their community assets and
liabilities. The two signed the agreement later that day.

One of the provision s of the settl ement 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 sepa ration, or both

. ”
The agreeme nt 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 portio n of the $5,700 tax refund. T he 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 waiv ed any claim to the refund when sh e signed the agreement

.

Jenn ifer 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 th at agreement. Be cause it is supported by substantial evidence, w e are bound by th e finding that Jennifer knew about the refund3

when she signed the agreement . (See In re Marriage of Bonds (2000 ) 24 Cal.4th 1, 37

- 38
, superseded by statute on o ther grounds as stated in In r e 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 a bout the $5,700 tax refund when she signed the settlement agreement, Jennifer waived any claim

to it

. Her request t hat the trial court find John in contempt

t herefore lacked a legal basis. The court thus properly granted
hi s 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 contem pt 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 p ro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.