Marriage of Moosa CA2/4, B261878

Background

Parties divorced; marital settlement agreement (incorporated into May 8, 2012 judgment) awarded the Culver City home (Berryman Property) to respondent Moosa as his sole and separate property, subject to existing mortgages and encumbrances.
Judgment required Moosa to use best efforts to remove petitioner Gulwani’s name from encumbrances, maintain payments, listed intent that the property be listed and sold, and gave the court continuing jurisdiction over property and executory provisions.
The judgment authorized appointment of the court clerk to execute documents on behalf of a party who failed or refused to sign instruments necessary to carry out the judgment.
After judgment, Gulwani complied by executing a quitclaim deed to Moosa but alleged Moosa failed to remove her from loans, pay mortgages or taxes, or list/sell the property. The court entered an unappealed May 5, 2014 order directing Gulwani to list and sell the property and reserving power to appoint the clerk if Moosa failed to cooperate.
Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve title/encumbrance issues and conflicting sale efforts, Gulwani sought an ex parte order (Dec. 2014) appointing the clerk to execute a quitclaim deed on Moosa’s behalf to transfer title to her as a bona fide purchaser; the trial court granted the request and Moosa appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal	Moosa lacked standing because order favored Gulwani	Moosa argued he was aggrieved by loss of property interest	Moosa had standing — he lost his complete interest when clerk was appointed to execute deed.
Court jurisdiction to grant ex parte relief appointing clerk	Gulwani: court reserved jurisdiction in judgment and could enforce executory provisions	Moosa: court lacked jurisdiction; request improperly modified final judgment; Fam. Code §2122 bars such relief	Court had jurisdiction — judgment expressly reserved jurisdiction to modify/implement property provisions and to appoint clerk; request was enforcement, not a motion to set aside judgment.
Whether order improperly altered original judgment or deprived Moosa's rights	Gulwani: order implemented and effectuated prior unappealed May 5, 2014 order directing sale; clerk appointment was authorized by judgment	Moosa: appointment and deed transfer conflicted with award of property to him and exceeded judgment terms (only required best efforts)	The challenged order merely effectuated the unappealed May 5, 2014 sale order and comported with the judgment’s executory enforcement clause; not an impermissible modification.
Application of Fam. Code §2122 (motion to set aside)	Gulwani: §2122 inapplicable because relief was enforcement, not setting aside judgment	Moosa: relied on §2122 to argue exclusivity prevents court from altering reserved-issue judgment	§2122 did not apply; petitioner’s ex parte enforcement request was not a motion to set aside the judgment.

Key Cases Cited

County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal.3d 730 (1971) (definition of an "aggrieved" party for standing to appeal)
In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (2011) (liberal construction of standing to appeal)
In re Marriage of Horowitz, 159 Cal.App.3d 377 (1984) (jurisdictional challenges may be raised on appeal)
In re Marriage of Jensen, 114 Cal.App.4th 587 (2003) (de novo review of jurisdiction questions)
In re Marriage of Smith, 148 Cal.App.4th 1115 (2007) (contract interpretation standards when reviewing marital settlement agreements)
Mueller v. Walker, 167 Cal.App.3d 600 (1985) (court may retain jurisdiction to modify property awards if expressly reserved)
In re Marriage of Thorne & Raccina, 203 Cal.App.4th 492 (2012) (same principle on reserved jurisdiction)
Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow, 230 Cal.App.4th 1017 (2014) (abuse of discretion standard for many family law orders)
People v. American Contractors Indem. Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (2004) (distinction between void and voidable orders and timing of collateral attacks)