Marriage of Wong and Lee CA2/1
B293892M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 16, 2021Background:
- Lisa Wong filed for divorce from Boschal Lee in 2014 after a contentious multi-year family-law dispute; the family court had earlier declared Boschal a vexatious litigant.
- Trial (Mar–Apr 2018) resolved property division issues: Arriba Drive (family residence), Grand Avenue (rental duplex), interests in Mitchell & Company (a Nevada S-corp), and a purported $1.5M loan/deed of trust from Kracksmith to Mitchell & Co.
- The family court found Mitchell & Co. community property, voided the $1.5M loan and deed of trust, determined Kracksmith and Boschal liable for misconduct, ordered sale of the Grand Avenue property, and awarded Lisa equalization payments and $104,681 in attorney fees and costs.
- Mitchell & Co. was not joined at trial; postjudgment the clerk conveyed the Grand Avenue property from Mitchell & Co. to the Lees, and the Lees conveyed it to a third party; Mitchell & Co. was later dissolved.
- Appellants (Boschal Lee pro per, Daphne Lee, and Kracksmith) appealed various rulings; this Court affirmed the judgment in part, dismissed or rejected other appeals as untimely, forfeited, or abandoned.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boschal’s prior appeals deprived the family court of jurisdiction under Code Civ. Proc. § 916 and thereby stayed the trial | Boschal: his earlier appeals (anti-SLAPP denial, vexatious-litigant ruling, motions re: fees/support, disqualification) triggered an automatic stay and divested the court of jurisdiction | Respondents: appeals only stay matters embraced in or affecting the appealed orders; trial matters were not affected and could proceed | Court: No stay; prior appeals did not deprive court of jurisdiction because the trial addressed matters not affecting the effectiveness of those earlier appeals (Varian limits stay to causes affected by the motion) |
| Whether Daphne forfeited several appellate claims (abandonment of Arriba Drive mortgage, entitlement to Grand Ave. income/ownership, severance of joint tenancy, improper joinder) | Daphne: claims preserved or are sufficiency-of-evidence challenges not subject to forfeiture | Other parties: Daphne failed to raise these theories below and cannot raise new legal theories on appeal | Court: Forfeited; claims were new legal theories or not litigated below and thus will not be considered |
| Whether nonjoinder of Mitchell & Co. required reversal or defeated Lisa’s standing to challenge the loan/deed of trust | Kracksmith/Boschal: Mitchell & Co. was an indispensable party under CCP § 389 and Lisa lacked standing because she was not the borrower/titleholder | Respondents: Mitchell & Co. was not joined but subsequent conveyances and dissolution moot any relief; Lisa had a concrete beneficial interest in Mitchell & Co. and standing to challenge encumbrances affecting its value | Court: No reversal required—nonjoinder is moot after conveyance/dissolution; Lisa had standing; appellants forfeited joinder challenges for failing to raise them properly |
| Whether award of $104,681 in attorney fees and costs to Lisa was improper (notice, scope, basis) | Kracksmith/Boschal: deficient notice under Fam. Code § 271(b); award based on improper/fraudulent invoices or should be limited | Respondents: parties agreed to try fees, had opportunity to be heard, fees supported by the record | Court: Affirmed fee award—no lack of notice, appellants failed to show error or support allegations with record/authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (appeal from denial of anti‑SLAPP motion stays only proceedings on causes of action affected by the motion)
- In re Marriage of Watts, 171 Cal.App.3d 366 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (procedural authority on family-law evidentiary issues and temporary rulings)
- Yu v. University of La Verne, 196 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (presumption of correctness on appeal and appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error)
- Schoshinski v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cal.App.5th 780 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (standing requires concrete, particularized beneficial interest)
- Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 215 Cal.App.4th 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (mootness where court cannot afford effective relief)
- In re Marriage of Ramirez, 198 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (indispensable-party principles and effect of judgment on nonparties)
- Takahashi v. Board of Education, 202 Cal.App.3d 1464 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (nonparty may invoke collateral estoppel defensively if elements are met)