In re Marriage of Oliverez
238 Cal. App. 4th 1242
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Donna and Mark Oliverez separated in 2007; they signed a purported marital settlement agreement in April 2008 intended to be incorporated into the divorce judgment.
- In March 2009 Mark moved to enter judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6; Judge Heather Morse denied the motion on December 1, 2010, finding no meeting of the minds and that the Agreement was unenforceable.
- The case was later reassigned to Judge Stephen Siegel; a 15-day bench trial was held on matters previously covered by the Agreement because the Agreement had been ruled unenforceable.
- During or after trial Judge Siegel announced he would reconsider Judge Morse’s 2010 interlocutory ruling on his own motion, afforded briefing, and then vacated the prior ruling as unsupported by substantial evidence.
- Judge Siegel incorporated the Agreement into the final judgment of dissolution; Donna appealed, arguing Siegel erred by overruling another judge’s prior ruling after years and after trial, causing prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Oliverez (wife) Argument | Oliverez (husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May one trial judge overrule another judge’s prior interlocutory order absent statutory reconsideration? | Judge Siegel lacked authority; one judge should not reverse another’s ruling after it stood and parties relied on it. | Judge Siegel had inherent authority under Le Francois to reconsider interim orders on his own motion. | Reversed: generally a judge may not overrule another judge; narrow exceptions apply and none were shown here. |
| Was Le Francois sufficient to permit Judge Siegel’s action here? | Le Francois does not permit one judge to reverse another judge’s ruling merely on disagreement. | Le Francois allows a court to reconsider interim orders on its own motion even without new facts or law. | Le Francois permits court-initiated reconsideration, but it does not resolve whether one judge can overturn another; here reversal was improper. |
| Did Judge Siegel show an applicable exception (unavailability, new evidence, mistake/fraud) to permit overruling? | No — no showing Judge Morse was unavailable, nor new facts, nor mistake/fraud. | Siegel argued the prior ruling was clearly erroneous and unsupported by evidence. | Held for wife: none of the narrow exceptions applied; mere disagreement is insufficient. |
| Did vacating the prior order prejudice wife? | Yes — three years of litigation and a 15-day trial occurred in reliance on the prior ruling. | Husband asserted the Agreement should be enforced and relied on his evidence. | Held for wife: prejudice found; reconsideration after multi-year reliance was unfair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (2005) (trial court has inherent power to reconsider its prior interim orders on its own motion)
- Curtin v. Koskey, 231 Cal.App.3d 873 (1991) (narrow circumstances for one judge to reconsider another judge’s ruling)
- Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.3d 1222 (1988) (second judge may act when the original judge is unavailable)
- In re Alberto, 102 Cal.App.4th 421 (2002) (a judge should not nullify a duly made ruling of another judge; doing so risks forum shopping)
- Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, 232 Cal.App.3d 1060 (1991) (ruling may be reversed for inadvertence, mistake, or fraud)
- People v. Riva, 112 Cal.App.4th 981 (2003) (reconsideration appropriate where facts have changed or further evidence is considered)