Woolsey v. Woolsey
220 Cal. App. 4th 881
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Clark and Anna Woolsey mediated at Live at Peace Ministries and signed a written marital settlement agreement (MSA) resolving custody, property division, and permanently waiving spousal support.
- Anna filed for legal separation/dissolution; Clark later opposed entry of judgment on the MSA.
- Anna moved to enforce the MSA under Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6; one-day trial was held where Clark (self‑represented) testified and admitted no undisclosed assets; Clark called only the custody mediator as a witness.
- Trial court entered judgment enforcing the MSA and made custody/visitation orders (Anna primary caregiver). Clark appealed.
- On appeal the court addressed disclosure compliance (Fam. Code §§ 2104–2106), Placer County Local Rule 30.7 requirements (notarization/admonition to unrepresented parties), mediation confidentiality and undue influence, procedural/due‑process claims, and adequacy of the trial court’s statement of decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (Anna) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether strict Family Code disclosure formalities (§§2104–2105) are required for private mediation settlements | MSA unenforceable for lack of timely statutory preliminary/final disclosures | Parties may agree to private mediation and summary disclosures; post‑mediation disclosures and waiver rules control | Parties who settle by private mediation need not meet the technical procedural form of §§2104–2105; post‑mediation disclosure rules (e.g., §2106) apply and Clark forfeited complaint about his own lack of final disclosure |
| Validity/applicability of Placer County Local Rule 30.7 (notarization and right‑to‑counsel admonition) | MSA invalid for noncompliance with rule 30.7 | Local rule imposes additional requirements beyond statute and is invalid to that extent; trial court excused compliance here | Local rule 30.7 is invalid insofar as it adds requirements to statutory criteria (Evid. Code §1123; Fam. Code §2550; CCP §664.6); trial court correctly enforced MSA nonetheless |
| Whether mediation confidentiality/Evid. Code §1119 and mediation process bar undue influence/deceit claims | MSA presumed tainted by undue influence because it advantages Anna; deceit/duress claims warrant setting aside | Mediation confidentiality bars admission of communications; no presumption of undue influence for mediated MSAs | Mediation confidentiality precludes evidence of mediation communications; no presumption of undue influence for mediated settlements (undermining Clark’s challenge) |
| Whether Clark was denied due process or prevented from presenting evidence at trial | Trial court prevented full presentation of evidence; procedural errors in tentative ruling | Record shows Clark testified, cross‑examined, made no offer of proof, accepted briefing schedule; no restriction shown | No due process violation; Clark received a full and fair trial and forfeited opportunities to present further evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Elden v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App.) (private/nonjudicial arbitration may permit alternative disclosure procedures)
- Foxgate Homeowners’ Assn. v. Bramalea California, Inc., 26 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2001) (mediation is a legislatively encouraged form of ADR)
- Cassel v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 113 (Cal. 2011) (mediation confidentiality can bar malpractice claims about mediator‑related communications)
- Kieturakis, In re Marriage of, 138 Cal.App.4th 56 (Cal. Ct. App.) (no presumption of undue influence for mediated marital settlements)
- In re Marriage of Cream, 13 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App.) (courts generally accept written/stipulated property divisions even if lopsided)
- Levy v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.4th 578 (Cal. 1995) (§ 664.6 is an expedited enforcement mechanism for settlement agreements)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (Cal. 2007) (limits on local rules: they must not conflict with statutes or Judicial Council rules)
- Hogoboom v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.App.4th 653 (Cal. Ct. App.) (local rules imposing fees or requirements preempted where statute occupies the field)
- Fair v. Bakhtiari, 40 Cal.4th 189 (Cal. 2006) (a written mediated settlement must demonstrate present intent to be bound)