Storn v. Carney CA1/2
A169723
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 23, 2024Background
- Storn and Carney became engaged in November 2019, jointly purchased artwork valued at $350,000 with certificates of ownership in both names, and moved in together (with Carney's children) in December 2019.
- The couple’s relationship deteriorated, involving conflict with allegations of aggression and abuse by both sides, and Storn eventually demanded Carney leave his home in October 2023.
- Upon moving out, Carney took some personal property, two dogs, and two pieces of the jointly owned artwork; Storn filed a police report and civil lawsuit for the artwork, and his attorney sent a threatening email accusing Carney of theft to her and others.
- In November 2023, Carney sought a domestic violence restraining order against Storn; Storn countered with his own request, resulting in a consolidated hearing where both parties were represented by counsel.
- The trial court issued mutual one-year restraining orders against both parties, ordered return of the artwork to Storn upon payment of $200,000 to Carney, and denied attorney’s fees to both sides.
- Storn appealed the issuance of the mutual restraining orders and the associated property and fee orders; Carney did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Mutual Restraining Orders | Carney sought order against Storn due to alleged abuse. | Storn argued issuance of mutual orders didn’t meet statutory requirements. | Mutual orders were improper—court failed to make required statutory findings. |
| Compliance with Family Code § 6305 (Mutual Orders) | No specific argument noted from Carney on compliance. | Storn: Court did not make “detailed findings” required for mutual orders. | Trial court erred; orders reversed. |
| Property Distribution Authority | Carney argued for joint ownership and division of artwork. | Storn wanted return of artwork, contested $200,000 payment. | Court’s property restraint order noted as manifestly wrong but not dispositive to appeal result. |
| Attorney’s Fees | Carney requested her own fees. | Storn claimed entitlement as prevailing party. | No fees awarded; neither side prevailed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cassandra B., 125 Cal.App.4th 199 (restraining order appeal not always moot due to possible future collateral consequences)
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (discusses burdens and lasting consequences of domestic violence restraining orders)
- In re Marriage of Everard, 47 Cal.App.5th 109 (details requirement for factual findings in mutual restraining orders)
- Melissa G. v. Raymond M., 27 Cal.App.5th 360 (mutual restraining orders must meet §6305 requirements, or are voidable)
- Monterroso v. Moran, 135 Cal.App.4th 732 (court acted in excess of authority by not making required findings for mutual orders)