223 Cal. App. 4th 1004
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parties were married in 1989, separated in 2004, and dissolved; Hedge Avenue property and Ranchita Way were central in postjudgment proceedings.
- Judge Mize previously ruled on property division in 2007, including Epstein credits and rent provisions; remanded issues for later handling.
- A 2012 hedge sale motion led to discovery disputes and requests for postjudgment accounting and reimbursements.
- Husband moved to have all postjudgment credits/debts heard at an August 2012 trial; discovery and notices were debated at multiple hearings.
- At trial, the court limited issues to postjudgment matters, discussed Ranchita Way reimbursement, and ultimately entered a postjudgment order dividing proceeds and addressing credits.
- Wife appealed, challenging due process, discovery limits, clerical corrections, and postjudgment credits; the appellate court affirmed the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adding Ranchita Way reimbursements before trial violated due process | Boblitt asserts discovery closed but Ranchita Way was added, depriving discovery | Boblitt contends discovery does not reopen automatically post-judgment and no due process violation | No automatic reopening; due process not violated; discovery not reopened absent order or agreement |
| Whether the trial court properly limited pretrial rental income accounting | Wife argues pretrial rental accounting should be addressed | Court limited issues to postjudgment matters; no error | No error; court’s postjudgment focus and lack of pretrial accounting issue supported |
| Whether clerical errors in the judgment could be corrected | Wife sought correction of omitted credits and Ranchita ruling | Court rejected clerical-error correction as barred by res judicata and final judgment | No reversible error; correction denied but not due to clerical-error grounds; affirmed as to clerical-issue handling |
| Whether postjudgment Watts charges for Hedge Avenue use were proper | Wife claimed ongoing Watts charge post-judgment was improper | No postjudgment Watts charge admissible; no agreement to continue rent | No error; postjudgment Watts charge not justified; ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. Avery, 10 Cal.App.3d 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (clerical-error doctrine not applicable to postjudgment corrections in this context)
- In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 203 Cal.App.4th 964 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (Watts charge post-separation limitations; posttrial use of property)
- Avery v. Avery, 10 Cal.App.3d 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (clerical-error doctrine does not bar correction of judgment where appropriate)
- In re Epstein, 24 Cal.3d 76 (Cal. 1979) (definition and use of Epstein credits for post-separation community funds)
- Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.4th 245 (Cal. 2000) (limits on reopening discovery after mistrial/new trial context; not controlling here but cited regarding discovery timing)
- Benway v. Benway, 69 Cal.App.2d 574 (Cal. App. 1945) (distinction between ministerial judgment entry and trial findings; clerical vs nonclerical)