NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE"

Transcription

1 Filed 2/19/10 Vince v. City of Orange CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule (b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE DENNIS L. VINCE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, G (Super. Ct. No. 08FL000395) O P I N I O N Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Barry S. Michaelson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Affirmed. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, and Wendy J. Phillips, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Kevin F. Harrison and Kevin F. Harrison for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

2 INTRODUCTION The Orange County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) appeals from a writ of mandate, issued by the Orange County Superior Court, ordering DCSS to stop its actions enforcing a support order. The support order had been entered by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, but never registered with the Orange County Superior Court. We affirm. Unless DCSS first complies with the registration provisions of Family Code section 5600 et seq., DCSS is not authorized to enforce a support order entered by a court in another county as if it had originally been entered by the Orange County Superior Court. A writ of mandate was the proper means for ensuring DCSS s compliance with the Family Code s rules regarding enforcement of support orders entered in other counties. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 3, 1969, an interlocutory judgment of divorce was entered by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, terminating the marriage of Dennis L. Vince and Donna Mae Vince. 1 Dennis and Donna had one child. In the judgment of divorce, Dennis was ordered to pay Donna $25 per week for child support (the Los Angeles County support order). Donna began receiving public assistance from Orange County for the minor child no later than Donna requested in writing on several occasions between 1978 and 1981 that DCSS continue collection and enforcement efforts on her behalf. Dennis began making voluntary payments to DCSS on August 3, Dennis stopped making those payments on November 7, In May 1998, DCSS filed a petition in Florida to enforce welfare reimbursement. (Dennis lived in Florida then, and no disrespect. 1 We refer to Dennis and Donna by their first names to avoid confusion; we intend 2

3 continued to live there in 2008.) DCSS received payments from Dennis through Florida beginning in October In April 2008, Dennis filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition in Orange County Superior Court. Dennis claimed he had fully reimbursed Orange County for the public assistance benefits paid to Donna, and claimed Donna had waived her right to child support in an agreement signed in Dennis sought a peremptory writ commanding DCSS to stop garnishing his wages and stop support enforcement actions against him, and ordering reimbursement of all money collected by DCSS in excess of its claim for welfare assistance reimbursement. Following briefing and a hearing, the trial court took the matter under submission. The court issued a tentative decision on October 7, The parties provided written comments to the tentative decision. On December 12, 2008, the court issued an amendment which, together with the tentative decision, was deemed to be a statement of decision. On the same date, the court issued a writ of mandate. DCSS timely appealed from the judgment. DISCUSSION I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person. (Code Civ. Proc., 1085, subd. (a).) The writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law. It must be issued upon the verified petition of the party beneficially interested. (Id., 1086.) 3

4 In reviewing the trial court s ruling on a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, the Court of Appeal ordinarily determines whether the court s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] However, when, as here, the question involves the trial court s interpretation of a statute and the legal meaning of a written instrument on undisputed evidence, the question is one of law, subject to de novo review. [Citation.] (Kelly v. County of Los Angeles (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 910, ) II. DCSS WAS REQUIRED TO REGISTER THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPPORT ORDER IN THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE IT. A. The Relevant Statutes In exchange for providing funding for public assistance, the federal government requires states to provide services related to the establishment, modification, or enforcement of child support obligations. (42 U.S.C. 654(4)(A).) California meets this requirement through its Department of Child Support Services and the local child support agency in each county, which are charged with promptly and effectively collecting and enforcing child support obligations. (Fam. Code, 17500, subd. (a); see 17400, subd. (a) [ Each county shall maintain a local child support agency, as specified in Section 17304, that shall have the responsibility for promptly and effectively establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations, including medical support, enforcing spousal support orders established by a court of competent jurisdiction, and determining paternity in the case of a child born out of wedlock ].) DCSS is the local child support agency for Orange County. (Orange County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 798, 806.) DCSS may enforce a support order if a child is receiving public assistance, or if the parent to whom support is due requests that enforcement services be provided. 4

5 (Fam. Code, 17400, subd. (a).) One of the statutory procedures for enforcement of a support order is registration of an order obtained in a different county. A local child support agency or obligee may register an order for support or earnings withholding, or both, obtained in another county of the state. (Id., 5600, subd. (a).) 2 The procedure for registering a support order issued by another California county is set forth by the statute as follows: (a) When the local child support agency is responsible for the enforcement of a support order pursuant to Section 17400, the local child support agency may register a support order made in another county by utilizing the procedures set forth in Section 5602 or by filing all of the following in the superior court of his or her county: [ ] (1) An endorsed file copy of the most recent support order or a copy thereof. [ ] (2) A statement of arrearages, including an accounting of amounts ordered and paid each month, together with any added costs, fees, and interest. [ ] (3) A statement prepared by the local child support agency showing the post office address of the local child support agency, the last known place of residence or post office address of the obligor; the most recent address of the obligor set forth in the licensing records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, if known; and a list of other states and counties in California that are known to the local child support agency in which the original order of support and any modifications are registered. [ ] (b) The filing of the documents described in subdivision (a) constitutes registration under this chapter. (Fam. Code, 5601, subds. (a), (b).) The statutes provide the obligor with the opportunity to challenge the registration: (a) An obligor shall have 20 days after the service of notice of the registration of a California order of support in which to file a noticed motion requesting 2 Other procedures for enforcement of a support order available to a local child support agency include, but are not limited to, earnings assignment orders (Fam. Code, 5200 et seq.), writs of execution (Code Civ. Proc., , subd. (a)), and contempt proceedings (Orange County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Superior Court, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 801). 5

6 the court to vacate the registration or for other relief. In an action under this section, there shall be no joinder of actions, coordination of actions, or cross-complaints, and the claims or defenses shall be limited strictly to the identity of the obligor, the validity of the underlying California support order, or the accuracy of the obligee s statement of the amount of support remaining unpaid unless the amount has been previously established by a judgment or order.... If the obligor does not file the motion within 20 days, the registered California support order and all other documents filed pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5601 or Section 5602 are confirmed. [ ] (b) At the hearing on the motion to vacate the registration of the order, the obligor may present only matters that would be available to the obligor as defenses in an action to enforce a support judgment. (Fam. Code, 5603, subds. (a), (b).) B. The Statement of Decision and the Writ of Mandate In relevant part, the trial court s statement of decision reads as follows: The Interlocutory Judgment of Divorce was granted in Donna Mae Vince, Plaintiff v. Dennis L. Vince, Respondent, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. D 737,611, on June 3, 1969 (over 39 years ago).... Child support for the minor child... was set at $25.00 per week.... An Affidavit of Accrued Arrears was prepared by the Family Support Division of the Orange County District Attorney, on May 6, 1998 ( Affidavit ). This Affidavit contained a caption of County of Orange, Petitioner v. Dennis L. Vince, Respondent. Orange County Superior Court Case No. D 737,611[ ] (emphasis added). Apparently the Los Angeles County Superior Court case number was handwritten in on the Orange County Superior Court document. There is not any proof that an Orange County Superior Court case ever existed between these parties until this instant case was filed in Petitioner alleges that Orange County Department of Child Support Services has issued orders to the State of Florida to collect upon this judgment. There 6

7 has not been any assignment of the Los Angeles judgment to Orange County for collection and/or modification purposes. Orange County asserts that on October 1, 1973, the mother... applied for and was granted public assistance which commenced no later than 1975 (emphasis added).... [ ]... [ ]... The Orange County Department of Child Support Services is ordered to cease and desist from any collection efforts based upon the Los Angeles Superior Court order until a proper assignment of it is received and accepted by Orange County, including filing an appropriate action in the Orange County Superior Court. After service, as required by law, upon Dennis L. Vince, all defenses available to him may be asserted. The purported Affidavit of Accrued Arrears is determined not to have any legal effect at all. The Orange County Department of Child Support Services may enforce any appropriate collection of public welfare amounts which were expended by it, subject to any defenses which may be asserted by the Defendant. The amendment to the statement of decision added the following:... A proper assignment of amounts owed to the County of Los Angeles may occur in various ways. A local child support agency or obligee may register an order for support or earnings withholding, or both, obtained in another county of the state. [Fam. Code Sec. 5600(a) (emphasis added)] This section is permissive, not mandatory. If the County of Orange decides to use the procedure authorized by the Family Code, Division 9, Part 5, Chapter 8, Article 9, commencing at Section 5600 for Intercounty Support Obligations, then it must comply with its requirements. It is undisputed that on May 6, 1998, an Affidavit of Accrued Arrears was created by the County of Orange, using a caption of Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. D 737, It is further undisputed that the County of Orange never filed this document with the Orange County Superior Court and in fact the case number is the same as the Los Angeles County Superior Court case. No such case 7

8 number exists in the Orange County Superior Court. It is alleged that this document is being utilized by the County of Orange to attempt to collect money from the Petitioner in another state. The federal law sets forth minimum requirements for state programs; it does not establish the procedures to accomplish them. [Citation.] The state law referenced by the County states, in part: The local child support agency shall take appropriate action,... in the collection of child support enforcement. [Fam. C. Sec (a) (emphasis added)] To designate an Orange County case heading on a Los Angeles County case which has not been properly assigned or transferred for enforcement action is wrong, ineffective, and not appropriate action. If public assistance was granted by Orange County, then it is collectible. The fact that public assistance was granted by Orange County does not constitute an automatic assignment of prior amounts of child support and/or public assistance from Los Angeles County when Orange County has decided to utilize the procedures established in Family Code Sections 5600 et. seq. The writ of mandate reads, in relevant part, as follows: IT IS ORDERED THAT the County of Orange through the Department of Child Support Services of the County of Orange cease and desist from any collection efforts based upon the Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. D until it complies with the requirements of Family Code Sections 5600 et. seq. by properly registering and serving the order in the Orange County Superior Court. After appropriate service of the documents upon Dennis L. Vince, all lawful defenses available to him may be asserted. [ ] This order does not restrict the County of Orange from pursuing collection efforts for any public assistance provided by it to Donna Mae Vince. 8

9 C. Analysis DCSS argues that because the language of Family Code sections 5600, subdivision (a) and 5601, subdivision (a) is permissive, it follows that DCSS was not required to register the Los Angeles County support order before enforcing it. We disagree. DCSS is not compelled to try to collect, but if it does, it must comply with the appropriate statutes. The statutory procedures governing intercounty support obligations, Family Code section 5600 et seq., provide a mechanism for a county, which did not initially enter a support order, to enforce, and even modify, the support order. To take advantage of that mechanism, however, the enforcing support agency must comply with its requirements. DCSS failed to do so here. Enforcement proceedings generally must be commenced in the court where the underlying order or judgment was rendered. [ ]... Out-of-state judgments and orders may be domesticated in California and thereafter enforced in California as if first entered as a California judgment or order.... [ ] Likewise, support orders may be registered between counties in California [citation], whereupon proper venue shifts to the county where the order has been registered [citation]. (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2009) 18:16 to 18:16:1, p (rev. #1, 2009), italics omitted.) Once properly registered, the order has the same effect as if it had originally been issued by the court of the county of registration. (Id., 18:811.2, p ) DCSS argues the registration procedures created by Family Code section 5600 et seq. are required only if the county in which the support order is to be enforced desires to modify the order. As a matter of statutory interpretation, we must reject this argument. Family Code sections 5600, 5601, and 5603 are part of a single statutory scheme and must be read and construed together. (See County of Los Angeles v. Ferguson (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 549, 557.) None of the sections states that registration is in any way limited to situations in which modification is sought. Section 5601, 9

10 subdivisions (a) and (b) state that registration is complete when certain documents are filed, none of which is a request for modification. Section 5603, subdivision (a) strictly limits the defenses that may be raised by the child support obligor to the identity of the obligor, the validity of the underlying California support order, or the accuracy of the obligee s statement of the amount of support remaining unpaid. If registration were required only when modification of the original support order was sought, the statute would logically include reference to some type of defense to a modification request. DCSS also argues the writ of mandate is an improper collateral attack on the Los Angeles County support order. To the contrary, the writ of mandate does not purport to address the validity of the Los Angeles County support order, and makes clear that DCSS may properly enforce collection of any amounts expended by it for Dennis and Donna s minor child. True, the writ of mandate emphasizes Dennis s right to raise any available defenses to the Los Angeles County support order if and when DCSS attempts to register it; this simply gives both parties the rights provided to them by statute. (Fam. Code, 5603, subds. (a), (b).) The fallacy of DCSS s arguments is demonstrated by the very documents it used to seek enforcement of the Los Angeles County support order. DCSS s documents purport to seek enforcement of an order of the Orange County Superior Court, case No. D737,611 a case that does not and has never existed. The affidavit of accrued arrears dated May 6, 1998, purports to bear the case title County of Orange o/b/o Donna Mae Vince aka Donna Mae Stroyer, Petitioner, vs. Dennis L. Vince, Respondent, and to bear case No. D737,611 in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. That case number was assigned to the divorce proceedings between Dennis and Donna in Los Angeles County Superior Court. At oral argument on appeal, DCSS conceded that the use of the Los Angeles County Superior Court case number on a document purporting to issue from or be filed in the Orange County Superior Court was an error, but claimed the error was only a clerical one. 10

11 DCSS also argues a writ of mandate was not available to Dennis because he had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy the filing of a motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court to establish the correct amount of his arrears. The writ of mandate compels DCSS to stop its improper enforcement of the Los Angeles County support order; it does not address, much less resolve, the issue of the correct amount of Dennis s arrears. DCSS does not contend Dennis had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to stop DCSS s enforcement actions other than the filing of a petition for a writ of mandate. DCSS also argues the writ of mandate was improperly issued because it compels a discretionary, not a ministerial, duty. DCSS misapprehends the nature of the writ issued by the trial court. The writ of mandate does not compel DCSS to use the processes of Family Code section 5600 et seq. Rather, it compels DCSS to cease its actions enforcing and pursuing collection on the Los Angeles County support order without first complying with the procedures required by those statutes. This is a legitimate and proper use of the writ of mandate. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal. WE CONCUR: FYBEL, J. RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J. ARONSON, J. 11

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585 Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ---- Filed 10/23/96 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- SHARON BOUTTE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 3 Civ. C020606 (Super. Ct.

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/14/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE RICHARD C. SORIA, JR., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. RICHARD

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 12/3/14 Backflip Software v. Cisco Systems CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/9/15; pub. & mod. order 10/27/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re the Marriage of TERRI E. and GLENN RICHARD DRAKE.

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/17/16 Marriage of Georgi-Juarez and Juarez CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR Filed 2/21/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR KB HOME GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC., Petitioner, B246769 (Los Angeles County

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 5/28/15 Lopez v. Fishel Co. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 10/22/15 In re Marriage of Schwartz and Scholnick CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/7/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LARS ROULAND et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. PACIFIC SPECIALTY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 6/19/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. M.S., v. Plaintiff

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 4/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BATTAGLIA ENTERPRISES, INC., D063076 Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY,

More information

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014

In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: MICHELLE MARIE SMITH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. GREG ROLAND SMITH, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 13-0330 FILED 06-24-2014 Appeal from

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/14/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SCOTT B., a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 3/20/15 Marriage of Watkins CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B179806

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B179806 Filed 10/19/05; pub. order 11/16/05 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN Conservatorship of the Persons of JERRY P. KAYLE et al.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- Filed 5/16/13; pub. order 6/12/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- STEVE SCHAEFER, Plaintiff and Respondent, C068229 (Super.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 9/19/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LAS VEGAS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

More information

Civil Suits: The Process

Civil Suits: The Process Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized

More information

R&R Pipeline, Inc. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co.

R&R Pipeline, Inc. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co. Cited As of: April 28, 2014 1:24 PM EDT R&R Pipeline, Inc. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five January 27, 2014, Opinion Filed B246974 Reporter:

More information

Appeal Bonds, Sureties, and Stays

Appeal Bonds, Sureties, and Stays Appeal Bonds, Sureties, and Stays Appellate Lawyers Association April 22, 2009 Brad Elward Peoria Office The Effect of a Judgment A judgment is immediately subject to enforcement and collection. Illinois

More information

Deadlines in Family Law Litigation

Deadlines in Family Law Litigation Deadlines in Family Law Litigation Jimmy L. Verner, Jr. 1 I. Introduction This outline summarizes the more common deadlines encountered in family law litigation. It does not list all of them. The outline

More information

How to Litigate a Writ of Mandate Case

How to Litigate a Writ of Mandate Case How to Litigate a Writ of Mandate Case Manuela Albuquerque, Esq. Thomas B. Brown, Esq. Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP League of California Cities City Attorneys Conference May 4-7, 2011 Yosemite Introduction

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/29/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LUCY VUKI et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION LOUISE FOSTER Administrator of the : AUGUST TERM 2010 Estate of GEORGE FOSTER : and BARBARA DILL : vs.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ---- In re the Marriage of CAROL and WALT BADER.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ---- In re the Marriage of CAROL and WALT BADER. Filed 1/4/16 Marriage of Bader CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 7/25/12 Ehmke v. Larkin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 5/19/97 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Civil

More information

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent 46 Cal. App. 3d 950, *; 1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1821, **; 120 Cal. Rptr. 600, *** CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent Civ. No. 44622 Court of

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Sacramento 720 9 th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 874-5522 Website www.saccourt.ca.gov

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Sacramento 720 9 th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 874-5522 Website www.saccourt.ca.gov SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Sacramento 720 9 th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 874-5522 Website www.saccourt.ca.gov Program Information and Materials The attached materials describe the Program

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ---- Filed 1/29/03; Supreme Court pub. order 2/18/04 (see end of opn. for counsel) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- HAGAN ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiff

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 6/12/14 Marriage of Jones CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

61.14 Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders.--

61.14 Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders.-- Florida Statutes 61.14 Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders.-- (1)(a) When the parties enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as In re H.P., 2015-Ohio-1309.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101781 IN RE: H.P., ET AL. Minor Children [Appeal By N.P., Mother]

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 1/26/16 Marriage of Rissas CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 3/21/97 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE STACY RUTTENBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, B092022 (Super. Ct. No. LC025584)

More information

LAS VEGAS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WILKIE WAY, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

LAS VEGAS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WILKIE WAY, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. Page 1 LAS VEGAS LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WILKIE WAY, LLC, Defendant and Respondent. B238921 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE G023979 O P I N I O N

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE G023979 O P I N I O N Filed 12/15/98 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LAURA B., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, G023979

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Earl v. Decatur Public Schools Board of Education, 2015 IL App (4th) 141111 Appellate Court Caption SHARI L. EARL, as Parent and Guardian of A.B., a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 12/18/14 Zulli v. Balfe CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227

More information

https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=1158fddba473599c44d5...

https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=1158fddba473599c44d5... Page 1 of 8 20 Cal. App. 4th 256, *; 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 501, **; 1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1169, ***; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8641 DALIA GHANOONI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUPER SHUTTLE OF LOS ANGELES et

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 7/7/16 P. v. Salazar CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-810. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-7519-00)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CV-810. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-7519-00) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 5/3/13 Turner v. Shiomoto CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

Small Claims: The Process in Detail

Small Claims: The Process in Detail What is a small claims division? Every justice court in Arizona has a small claims division to provide an inexpensive and speedy method for resolving most civil disputes that do not exceed $2,500. All

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/18/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO RSL FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, E060421 v. FELICIA ALFORD, (Super.Ct.No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

Delaware UCCJEA 13 Del. Code 1901 et seq.

Delaware UCCJEA 13 Del. Code 1901 et seq. Delaware UCCJEA 13 Del. Code 1901 et seq. 1901. Short title This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 1902. Definitions As used in this chapter: (1) "Abandoned"

More information

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART V - RULES OF PRACTICE IN JUSTICE COURTS Adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas Justice Court, Pct 1 1 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GENERAL... 6 RULE 523. DISTRICT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 6/29/16 In re A.S. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS Rel: 05/20/2016 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 2/10/15; unmodified opn. attached CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE LEWIS ANTEN, v. Petitioner, B258437 (Los Angeles

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 12/17/09 Certified for publication 1/13/10 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO COUNTY OF KERN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B211594

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U SIXTH DIVISION September 11, 2015 No. 1-14-3589 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1489 Barry H. Nash, Appellant, vs. James D. Gurovitsch,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Attorney for Defendant MAGGIE LOO SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 1 MICHAEL STEIN, Plaintiff, vs. MAGGIE LOO et al., Defendants. Case no. DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

More information

ORS 107.135 Vacation or modification of judgment; policy regarding settlement; enforcement of settlement terms; remedies.

ORS 107.135 Vacation or modification of judgment; policy regarding settlement; enforcement of settlement terms; remedies. ORS 107.135 Vacation or modification of judgment; policy regarding settlement; enforcement of settlement terms; remedies. 1. The court may at any time after a judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-05

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-05 [Cite as Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Jewell, 2008-Ohio-4782.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY THE CARTER-JONES LUMBER CO., dba CARTER LUMBER CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 7/10/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX JESSICA FREEMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Civil No. B230066 (Super.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B255326

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B255326 Filed 1/21/15 Century Quality Management v. JMS Air Conditioning etc. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 10/28/03; opn. following rehearing CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX AMEX ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff and Appellant,

More information

California UCCJEA Cal. Fam. Code 3400 et seq.

California UCCJEA Cal. Fam. Code 3400 et seq. California UCCJEA Cal. Fam. Code 3400 et seq. 3400. Citation of part This part may be cited as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 3402. Definitions As used in this part: (a) "Abandoned"

More information

HOSPITAL MEDICAL COLLECTIONS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants

HOSPITAL MEDICAL COLLECTIONS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants 65 Cal. App. 3d 46, *; 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 2189, **; 135 Cal. Rptr. 147, *** HOSPITAL MEDICAL COLLECTIONS, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Appellants

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY v. NO. 2014-IA-00913-SCT TIFFANY DUKES, ROBERT LEE HUDSON, TAWANDA L. WHITE, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF JEFFREY L. PIGGS, A MINOR CHILD DATE

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 2/2/16 P. v. Moore CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 10/27/15 In re M.J. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

MARYLAND CODE Family Law. Subtitle 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

MARYLAND CODE Family Law. Subtitle 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS MARYLAND CODE Family Law Title 9.5 MARYLAND UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT *** Current as of April, 2012 *** Section 9.5-101 Definitions Subtitle 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) In general.-

More information

CHAPTER 4 Original Actions in the Appellate Courts

CHAPTER 4 Original Actions in the Appellate Courts Original Actions in the Appellate Courts 4- CHAPTER 4 Original Actions in the Appellate Courts 4.1 Exercise of Concurrent Jurisdiction The Kansas Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in quo warranto,

More information

JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961

JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 JUSTICE COURT # 2 GRAHAM COUNTY STATE OF ARIZONA P.O. BOX 1159, 136 WEST CENTER STREET, PIMA AZ 85543 PHONE (928) 485-2771 FAX (928) 485-9961 SMALL CLAIMS INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING ***EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,

More information

CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS

CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO INCLUDE PROPER CODE SECTION IN ANSWER AS TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A CAR ACCIDENT CLAIM WAIVES THE BAR OF THE STATUTE

More information

SB 588. Employment: nonpayment of wages: Labor Commissioner: judgment enforcement.

SB 588. Employment: nonpayment of wages: Labor Commissioner: judgment enforcement. SB 588. Employment: nonpayment of wages: Labor Commissioner: judgment enforcement. (1) The Enforcement of Judgments Law provides for the enforcement of money judgments and other civil judgments. Under

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 1/27/16 P. v. Morales CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

Doster v. County of San Diego (1988)

Doster v. County of San Diego (1988) Doster v. County of San Diego (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 257, 251 Cal.Rptr. 507 [No. D006011. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. May 6, 1988.] MICHAEL D. DOSTER, Plaintiff

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01351-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.J.G. AND J.O.G., CHILDREN

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01351-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.J.G. AND J.O.G., CHILDREN AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 9, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01351-CV IN THE INTEREST OF S.J.G. AND J.O.G., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 11/23/15 G.M. v. Superior Court CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: RONALD E. WELDY Weldy & Associates Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DAVID E. WRIGHT KEVIN D. KOONS Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A143511

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A143511 Filed 11/26/14 Boyd v. Super. Ct. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 2/9/16 Anaya v. J s Maintenance Service CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 4/24/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE NASSEEM FARAG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B233137 (Los Angeles

More information

In re the Marriage of: SUSAN MARIE TRASK, Petitioner/Appellant, WADE MARTIN HANDLEY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0543 FC

In re the Marriage of: SUSAN MARIE TRASK, Petitioner/Appellant, WADE MARTIN HANDLEY, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0543 FC NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/4/98 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MIGHTY OAK TRUST et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, B100335 (Super. Ct.

More information

JESSIE W. WATKINS NO. 2008-CA-0320 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL AUBREY CHEATHAM, TOTAL POWER ELECTRIC, INC., AND U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JESSIE W. WATKINS NO. 2008-CA-0320 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL AUBREY CHEATHAM, TOTAL POWER ELECTRIC, INC., AND U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY JESSIE W. WATKINS VERSUS AUBREY CHEATHAM, TOTAL POWER ELECTRIC, INC., AND U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2008-CA-0320 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 7A Article 19 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 7A Article 19 1 Article 19. Small Claim Actions in District Court. 7A-210. Small claim action defined. For purposes of this Article a small claim action is a civil action wherein: (1) The amount in controversy, computed

More information

In re the Marriage of: EDNA MAE REWERS, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0007

In re the Marriage of: EDNA MAE REWERS, Petitioner/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0007 NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 3/22/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, B263869 (W.C.A.B.

More information

Case5:15-cv-03698-HRL Document1 Filed08/12/15 Page1 of 10

Case5:15-cv-03698-HRL Document1 Filed08/12/15 Page1 of 10 Case:-cv-0-HRL Document Filed0// Page of 0 Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr. [SBN: ] LAW OFFICES OF DONALD KILMER Willow Street, Suite 0 San Jose, California Voice: (0) - Fax: (0) - E-Mail: Don@DKLawOffice.com

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D November 19, 2009 No. 09-20049 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 9/17/15; pub. order 10/13/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MOBILE MEDICAL SERVICES FOR PHYSICIANS AND ADVANCED PRACTICE

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 7/25/14 Turchik v. M.A.G. Engineering & Mfg. co. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

George J. Badey, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Robert F. Kelly, Jr., Media, for respondent.

George J. Badey, III, Philadelphia, for petitioner. Robert F. Kelly, Jr., Media, for respondent. 1202 Pa. Moses THOMAS, Petitioner v. WORKERS COMPENSATION AP- PEAL BOARD (DELAWARE COUNTY), Respondent. Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted on Briefs Oct. 1, 1999. Decided Feb. 25, 2000. Following

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 7/29/99 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE RICHARD D. BAGLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, B122440 (Super. Ct. No. BC110263)

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010 GROSS, C.J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2010 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. D.B.D., the father, Appellee. No. 4D09-4862 [August 25, 2010]

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 5/19/09; pub. & mod. order 6/5/09 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE KEITH R., Petitioner, v. G041642 (Super. Ct. No. 06D008776)

More information