Court Opinion

ID: 9410580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 21:03:52.408242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.621170
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/28/23; Modified and Certified for Pub. 7/21/23 (order attached)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                DIVISION FIVE

In re Marriage of LORRAINE                       B313469 consolidated with
T. and CHRISTOPHER T.                            B317196
DeWOLFE.
                                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                 Super. Ct. No. BD483342)

LORRAINE T. DeWOLFE,

       Appellant,

       v.

CHRISTOPHER T. DeWOLFE,

       Respondent.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lawrence P. Riff, Judge, and Melinda A.
Johnson, Judge.* Reversed.

*Retired Judge of the Ventura Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
     The Cochran Firm California & Family Legal and Edward
L. Lyman III for Appellant.
     Hersh Mannis, Neal Raymond Hersh, Adam Philip Lipsic,
Andrew Stein; Law Offices of Judith R. Forman and Judith R.
Forman for Respondent.

                     I.    INTRODUCTION

     Lorraine T. DeWolfe (Lori) appeals from a privately
compensated temporary judge’s (the Honorable Melinda A.
Johnson) ruling that Christopher T. DeWolfe (Chris) 1, Lori’s
former husband, provided an accounting as to certain stock that
was the subject of a marital settlement agreement (MSA).
Among other things, 2 Lori contends Judge Johnson erred in
issuing her ruling because she (Lori) had withdrawn her request
for an order 3 for an accounting of her stock interest before the
ruling. We reverse.

1     In their briefs, the parties refer to appellant as “Lori” and
respondent as “Chris.” For clarity, we adopt the parties’
designations.

2     Lori raises a number of other issues in her opening and
reply briefs. Because we reverse the court’s ruling on another
ground, we do not reach those issues.

3     In family law proceedings under the Family Code, the term
“request for order” (RFO) “has the same meaning as the terms
‘motion’ or ‘notice of motion’ when used in the Code of Civil
Procedure.” (California Rules of Court, rule 5.92(a)(1)(A).)

                                  2
                       II.   BACKGROUND

       Lori and Chris were married on June 7, 1997. On
April 3, 2008, Lori filed a petition for marital dissolution. A
judgment of dissolution was entered on December 20, 2013.
       The parties’ MSA provided that Lori was “entitled to a ten
per cent (10%) economic interest in the 5,201,282 shares of
common stock in SGN Games, Inc. currently owned by [Chris]
(such shares of [Chris’s] common stock hereafter referred to as
the ‘SGN Interest’), said economic interest to be realized at such
time as [Chris’s] SGN Interest is monetized (i.e. paid out). . . . If
only a portion of the SGN Interest is monetized, [Lori’s] economic
interest shall be realized and paid in the same proportion. If the
SGN Interest is or becomes stock in another entity (‘NewCo’),
[Lori] shall have a continuing ten per cent (10%) economic
interest in [Chris’s] interest in ‘NewCo.’ . . . [Chris] shall hold
[Lori’s] ten per cent (10%) interest in constructive trust for the
benefit of [Lori] ([Lori’s] interest hereafter referred to as ‘[Lori’s]
In-Trust Interest.’) [Lori’s] In-Trust Interest shall include all
allocable income, distributions of any kind (including without
limitation dividends and accrued earnings) and/or other proceeds
or gross profits arising from operations or the sale or other
disposition of the SGN Interest, and [Lori] shall be solely
responsible for any income taxes, capital gains taxes, or other
liabilities arising from or related to [Lori’s] In-Trust Interest. . . .
[Lori] shall neither have nor exercise any rights as a shareholder
of SGN Games, Inc. pursuant to her In-Trust Interest, nor shall
she have any rights to compel sale or any other transfer or
disposition of any portion of the SGN Interest or her In-Trust
Interest, nor shall she have any right to compel any applicable

                                   3
company to declare/pay dividends or other distributions in
connection with [Lori’s] In-Trust Interest. [Lori] acknowledges
her understanding that [Lori’s] In-Trust Interest is purely an
economic interest in the SGN Interest.”
      In 2015, SGN Games Inc. merged with Netmarble America
Corporation, a subsidiary of Netmarble Games Corporation.
Chris provided Lori a letter from his attorneys reflecting that,
pursuant to the merger, 3,726,246 of Chris’s 5,201,282 shares of
SGN Games, Inc. common stock were converted into the right to
receive $15,818,679.14 and 1,475,035 shares of stock in the
resulting entity. 4 Chris paid Lori her 10 percent interest in the
stock sale proceeds—$1,581,867.91.
      On March 13, 2018, Lori filed an RFO re Modification of
Child Support and Attorney’s Fees. On May 16, 2018, Lori and
Chris stipulated to Judge Johnson’s appointment as a temporary
judge to resolve Lori’s RFO and other issues between them
including any additional RFOs either party filed prior to the May
1, 2019, expiration of Judge Johnson’s appointment. The
stipulation provided that Chris would advance Judge Johnson’s
compensation subject to reallocation by the court. It also
contained the following “Oath of Temporary Judge” signed by
Judge Johnson: “I, Hon. Melinda Johnson, Judge (Ret.), am an
active member of the State Bar of California and consent to act as
temporary judge in this matter as set forth in the above
Stipulation. I certify that I am aware of and will comply with
applicable provisions of Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Ethics
and Rule 2.831(b) of the California Rules of Court.”
      On April 30, 2019, prior to the expiration of Judge
Johnson’s stipulated appointment, Lori filed an RFO for an

4     This entity was later renamed “Jam City, Inc.”

                                4
accounting of her 10 percent interest in the Jam City, Inc. stock
Chris held in trust under the MSA (accounting RFO). Lori
asserted that “Chris has never provided me with any verified
accounting evidencing the evolution of the Common Shares and
what comprises my 10% interest . . . .”
       On October 16, 2019, pursuant to Lori and Chris’s
stipulation, the Honorable Lawrence P. Riff, the family law
division presiding judge, appointed Judge Johnson to continue as
the temporary judge on issues between Lori and Chris including
Lori’s accounting RFO. The appointment would terminate on
April 1, 2020, except that Judge Johnson’s appointment would
continue as to RFOs filed prior to and still pending and
undecided as of April 1, 2020. Like the parties’ initial stipulation
appointing Judge Johnson, this stipulation provided that Chris
would advance Judge Johnson’s compensation subject to
reallocation by the court and included an identical “Oath of
Temporary Judge” by Judge Johnson.
       At a hearing on March 11, 2020, Lori’s counsel stated that
Lori would be requesting a hearing on her accounting RFO.
Chris’s counsel noted the stipulation appointing Judge Johnson
would expire on April 1, 2020, and stated his desire that Judge
Johnson hear the matter given her familiarity with the case. He
believed Judge Johnson would have jurisdiction over the
accounting RFO but did not want there to be any confusion.
Judge Johnson concurred that she would have jurisdiction and
suggested she “just reset it so we have a target date . . . .” After
discussion with the parties, Judge Johnson set Lori’s accounting
RFO for a hearing on June 12, 2020.
       The next day, Lori filed a substitution of attorney form,
substituting herself as her counsel.

                                 5
      On June 8, 2020, Lori informed Chris’s counsel that she
would be withdrawing her accounting RFO and filing a “new
motion” with additional information. On June 11, 2020, Lori e-
mailed Judge Johnson stating that she was withdrawing her
accounting RFO so there was no need for the June 12, 2020,
hearing—“The accounting motion is being withdrawn, so there is
no need for the status conference tomorrow.”
      Judge Johnson copied Chris’s counsel on her response
acknowledging Lori’s e-mail. Chris’s counsel objected to Judge
Johnson taking the matter off calendar for June 12, 2020, stating
his belief that Lori was “effectively forum shopping” and stating
his belief that Judge Johnson would have jurisdiction over any
future accounting RFO Lori would file. Judge Johnson
responded, “If there is not an agreement to take the matter off
calendar, I will leave it on.”
      At the June 12, 2020, hearing, Lori appeared with counsel.
Judge Johnson stated that an issue concerning her jurisdiction to
hear and decide Lori’s accounting RFO had arisen and set that
issue for hearing on June 26, 2020.
      At the June 26, 2020, hearing, Lori’s counsel stated that
Lori did not have the funds to proceed with her accounting RFO.
The same day, apparently after the hearing, Lori filed a notice
withdrawing her accounting RFO without prejudice, stating she
was withdrawing her RFO “solely because she [did] not have
access to legal and accounting fees to proceed.” Judge Johnson
subsequently found she had jurisdiction over Lori’s accounting
RFO and any challenge to Lori’s withdrawal notice.
      On October 14, 2020, Chris filed an RFO to restore Lori’s
accounting RFO to Judge Johnson’s calendar (restoration RFO).
In support of his restoration RFO, Chris submitted declarations

                                6
and supporting evidence and requested that Judge Johnson find
good cause to proceed solely on the papers. Lori objected to Judge
Johnson hearing any motion filed after April 1, 2020, including
Chris’s restoration RFO.
       On December 3, 2020, Judge Johnson deemed Chris’s
restoration RFO related to Lori’s accounting RFO over which
Judge Johnson had jurisdiction. Judge Johnson granted Chris’s
restoration RFO and deemed the evidence Chris submitted with
it as his response to Lori’s accounting RFO. Judge Johnson ruled
that Lori could file a reply to Chris’s response and continued the
matter to February 26, 2021.
       On February 24, 2021, Lori filed an RFO with Judge Riff to:
       “1. Determine that Judge Pro Tem Melinda A. Johnson
had no jurisdiction over the parties’ post-judgment proceedings
held after April 1, 2020;
       “2. Determine that the Judge Pro Tempore’s appointment
is no longer operative;
       “3. Determine that all hearings for this matter be vacated
from her calendar;
       “4. Determine that [Lori’s] Notice of Withdrawal of the
RFO for Accounting is valid.”
       On April 21, 2021, Judge Riff denied Lori’s request, finding
that “Department 2 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, in which
the Supervising Judge of the Family Law Department sits, is not
the appropriate forum for [Lori’]s claims and does not have
jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by [Lori] . . . .” Lori
appealed Judge Riff’s ruling. 5

5     Because we hold below that Judge Johnson did not have
jurisdiction to rule on Lori’s accounting RFO because Lori’s notice
withdrawing her accounting RFO was effective when made on

                                  7
      On October 8, 2021, Judge Johnson ruled on Lori’s
accounting RFO. Judge Johnson found, “In July, 2015, [Lori] was
informed that [Chris] had disposed of 3,726,426 of the relevant
shares, receiving $15,818,679. The balance of 1,435,075 [sic.]
shares were replaced with an identical number of shares of
‘Series A’ stock in Jam City. This disposition was not voluntary
on [Chris’s] part, but was required because of a merger between
SGN and [NetMarble] America Corp., a subsidiary of its parent
company, NetMarble Games Corp[.] (‘NetMarble’)[fn. omitted],
resulting in a company branded Jam City Inc., with NetMarble
Games Corp. remaining the parent company. Of the cash
received, [Lori] received her 10% share, and [Chris] continues to
hold 10% of the Series A stock he received in the transaction for
her benefit.[Fn. omitted.] [Lori] asserted she had received no
documentation confirming the number of shares that had been
sold. Through April of 2016, [Lori] had ongoing communication
with [Chris’s] accountant and SGN’s counsel regarding the proper
income tax reporting of her proceeds. [Chris’s] 1099’s from SGN
and his tax returns for 2015 and 2016 report the same
information regarding the proceeds of the stock sale as [Chris]
has reported directly to [Lori].” Judge Johnson found Chris’s
accounting “sufficient” and denied Lori’s accounting RFO as
moot.

June 26, 2020, Lori’s challenge to Judge Riff’s ruling is moot.
(Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno (2014)
229 Cal.App.4th 340, 362–363, fn. omitted [“An appeal is moot if
the appellate court cannot grant practical, effective relief.
[Citation.]”].)

                                 8
                      III.   DISCUSSION

       Lori argues Judge Johnson lacked jurisdiction to rule that
Chris provided her with an accounting of her stock interest
because she (Lori) withdrew her accounting RFO and Chris filed
his restoration RFO after Judge Johnson’s appointment order
terminated on April 1, 2020. We agree.
       The parties’ stipulation continuing Judge Johnson’s service
stated, “This appointment order shall terminate on April 1, 2020,
(‘Termination Date’) except as follows: (a) by further
stipulation, or (b) if any request for orders filed prior to the
Termination Date are still pending and undecided as of the
Termination Date, then Judge Johnson's appointment shall be
automatically extended only as to the filed requests for order
until the conclusion of such matter(s) without the need for
further written stipulation or court order.”
       Lori filed her accounting RFO on April 30, 2019—prior to
the April 1, 2020, expiration of Judge Johnson’s appointment. On
June 26, 2020, Lori filed her notice withdrawing her accounting
RFO.
       On October 14, 2020, Chris filed his restoration RFO. On
December 3, 2020, Judge Johnson granted Chris’s restoration
RFO.
       On October 8, 2021, some 15 months after Lori filed her
notice withdrawing her accounting RFO, Judge Johnson ruled on
Lori’s accounting RFO.
       We hold that Lori’s notice withdrawing her accounting RFO
was effective when made on June 26, 2020. Judge Johnson’s
ruling granting Chris’s restoration RFO tacitly supports our
holding. That is, if Lori’s withdrawal of her accounting RFO had

                                9
not been effective when made, Judge Johnson would not have
later had to order that RFO restored. Chris does not cite, and we
have not found, any case that holds that a party needs a trial
court’s approval to withdraw a motion. Because Lori withdrew
her accounting RFO, Judge Johnson did not have jurisdiction to
rule on it. Chris’s restoration RFO did not restore Lori’s
withdrawn accounting RFO and Judge Johnson’s jurisdiction
because Chris filed it after April 1, 2020, the date Judge
Johnson’s appointment terminated under the parties’ stipulation.

                      IV.   DISPOSITION

     The order is reversed. Lori is awarded her costs on appeal.

                                         KIM, J.

We concur:

             BAKER, Acting P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                               10
In re Marriage of DeWolfe
B313469

BAKER, Acting P. J., Concurring

      I have signed the opinion for the court because I agree
reversal is required solely as a result of the stipulated temporary
judge’s error in deciding a motion for an accounting that
appellant Lorraine DeWolfe had already withdrawn. I write
separately because this appeal shines some light on the use of
stipulated temporary judges, and what is illuminated may
warrant broader reflection.
      The parties in this action stipulated to the use of a
privately compensated temporary judge. Under the terms of the
temporary judge’s appointment—of which the judge herself was
well aware—the judge was to be paid on an hourly basis solely by
respondent Christopher DeWolfe. When the temporary judge
was appointed, she did not take and subscribe the oath of office.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.831(b).) When Christopher DeWolfe
substituted in new counsel during the proceedings, the temporary
judge did not disclose the newly substituted law firm had served
as counsel in other matters over which the judge previously
presided. And, as the opinion for the court catalogs, when
Lorraine DeWolfe withdrew her motion for an accounting, the
temporary judge granted Christopher DeWolfe’s application to
“restore” the motion to the calendar, exceeded the contemplated
term of her stipulated appointment, and decided the motion in
Christopher DeWolfe’s favor—all of which increased the
compensation the temporary judge was due.
      The use of stipulated temporary judges is an established
practice, and I do not doubt the practice has some advantages.
But from what I see in this appeal, it may be time for some re-
examination of the rules and procedures in place to permit the
practice, including the extent to which existing rules and
procedures are being followed. After all, courts have an
independent interest in ensuring “‘legal proceedings appear fair
to all that observe them.’” 1 (Kennedy v. Eldridge (2011) 201
Cal.App.4th 1197, 1205.)

                       BAKER, Acting P. J.

      I believe the temporary judge’s actions were an attempt to
1

prevent Lorraine DeWolfe from engaging in what the judge saw
as forum shopping, but that is not the only inference an observer
could draw from the judge’s decision to determine the withdrawn
motion.

                                 2
Filed 7/21/23
                CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                          DIVISION FIVE

In re Marriage of LORRAINE             B313469 consolidated with
T. and CHRISTOPHER T.                  B317196
DeWOLFE.
                                       (Los Angeles County
                                       Super. Ct. No. BD483342)

LORRAINE T. DeWOLFE,
                                       ORDER MODIFYING
       Appellant,                      OPINION AND
                                       CERTIFYING OPINION
       v.                              FOR PUBLICATION

CHRISTOPHER T. DeWOLFE,

       Respondent.

THE COURT:

     Good cause appearing, the opinion in the above entitled
matter, filed on June 28, 2020, is hereby modified as follows:

       1. On page 9, last paragraph, first line, adding “, on the
          specific scenario presented here,” after “We hold”.
      2. On page 10, third line, deleting “Chris does not cite, and
         we have not found, any case that holds that a party
         needs a trial court’s approval to withdraw a motion.”
         and adding “Chris does not cite, and we have not found,
         any case that holds that a party needs a trial court’s
         approval to withdraw this sort of motion under the
         circumstances presented.”

      The filed opinion was not certified for publication in the
Official Reports. Upon application of appellant Lorraine T.
DeWolfe, for good cause appearing, and pursuant to California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b)it is ordered that the opinion shall
be published in the Official Reports.

      There is no change in the judgment.

 BAKER, Acting P. J.           MOOR, J.                KIM, J.

                                 2