In re Marriage of Sanchez

1

In re the Marriage of CARMEN PYRAH SANCHEZ and MICHAEL REY SANCHEZ.

CARMEN PYRAH SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. MICHAEL REY SANCHEZ, Respondent.

B316456

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

May 24, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. 18STFL03404 Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Affirmed in part reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Jeff Lewis Law, Jeffrey Lewis and Sean C. Rotstan for Appellant.

Law Office of Herb Fox and Herb Fox for Respondent.

BENDIX, J.

Carmen Pyrah Sanchez appeals from a judgment dissolving her marriage to respondent Michael Rey Sanchez. Carmen^[1]argues the family law court erred by denying her request for a statement of decision, that the court's findings were unsupported by the evidence, and that a ruling on a debt owed to the person who staged the family home for sale was a separate property issue beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction.

We agree the family law court erred by not issuing a statement of decision regarding its denial of Carmen's request for the return of certain intimate photographs and videos, for which the court offered no explanation in either its tentative decision or its final judgment. Carmen otherwise fails to show prejudice from the absence of a statement of decision as to any other issue, or that the court's findings were not supported by the evidence. We reject Carmen's jurisdictional argument for lack of citation to evidence in the record or legal authority.

Accordingly we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

BACKGROUND

Carmen and Michael married in 2004. They have two children, born in 2007 and 2013. They separated in 2017. Carmen petitioned for divorce on March 19, 2018.

Following trial, the family law court issued an approximately 15-page written ruling on June 10, 2021 addressing matters taken under submission, including child custody, child and spousal support, division of property, and other matters.^[2] We summarize only the rulings challenged in this appeal, and provide more detail on those rulings in the relevant sections of our Discussion, post.

The court awarded Carmen spousal support beginning at $5,000 per month, gradually reduced to zero by June 1, 2027. The court granted Michael's request under Family Code^[3] section 2640 for reimbursement for his separate property contributions to the purchase of the family home, and further characterized as his separate property his contributions to a 401(k) account made before marriage and after separation. The court attributed to Carmen any debt due to the person that staged the family home for sale, because the court found Carmen had the missing staging items.

The family law court did not rule expressly on a pocket brief Carmen filed on the day of closing arguments, May 27, 2021, in which she requested that Michael return all photographs and videos in his possession of Carmen "in any state of undress." Rather, the court's ruling stated, "All other requests, unless specifically addressed in this or the April 2, 2021 ruling are specifically denied."

On June 18, 2021, Carmen filed a request for a statement of decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 632. The request, an eight-page document, consisted of underlined headings listing the general topics Carmen wished addressed, with most headings followed by a detailed list of requests for findings and legal authorities pertaining to each topic. Among the topics on which Carmen sought a statement of decision were the spousal support award, Michael's section 2640 reimbursement claims on the proceeds of the sale of the family residence, his separate property claims on the 401(k) account, and Carmen's request for the return of the photographs and videos of her.

Four days later, on June 22, 2021, before the family law court had taken any action on Carmen's request for a statement of decision, Carmen filed objections to, and a request for clarification of the court's June 10, 2021 written decision. Four pages of the filing consisted of Carmen's objections to the court's section 2640 reimbursement to Michael for his separate property contributions to the family home. She argued Michael's reimbursement request was untimely, the court improperly placed the burden on the community to perform an accounting or record tracing, and the court ignored applicable community property presumptions. Carmen similarly argued Michael had failed adequately to trace the separate property he purportedly contributed to the retirement accounts. Carmen also contended, inter alia, the family law court exceeded its jurisdiction in attributing the debt from the staging company to her, and that the court's order gradually reducing her spousal support over time was based on speculation rather than evidence.

On June 25, 2021, the family law court issued a minute order denying Carmen's request for a statement of decision. The court first found the request was "untimely," because the June 10, 2021 decision "was a final ruling, not a tentative decision." Additionally, the court found the request was "essentially seven and ½ pages of interrogatories," and the court was "not obligated to answer open ended questions concerning 'all factual and evidentiary findings and legal authorities' concerning each and every issue in the case." The court stated its June 10, 2021 decision "sets forth in detail its reasoning; the Court has little to add." The court stated it had read and noted Carmen's objections filed June 22, 2021, but did not comment further on them.

The family law court entered judgment on September 7, 2021. The judgment is lengthy and detailed, and on the matters at issue in this appeal largely mirrors the language from the court's June 10, 2021 ruling. The judgment, like the June 10, 2021 ruling, does not expressly address Carmen's request for the return of the photographs and videos of her.

Carmen timely appealed from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Carmen contends the family law court erred by failing to grant her request for a statement of decision on "four material issues": (1) Michael's section 2460 claim regarding the family home; (2) Michael's separate property claim on the 401(k) account; (3) the spousal support award; and (4) Carmen's request for the return of intimate photographs and videos. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the first three of these "material issues." Finally, she argues the family law court lacked jurisdiction to impose on Carmen the debt owed to the stager. We agree Carmen is entitled to a statement of decision regarding the photographs and videos, but otherwise reject her challenges.

A. The Denial of a Statement of Decision Regarding the Photographs and Videos Was Prejudicial Error

We begin with Carmen's challenge regarding the photographs and videos.

Code of Civil Procedure section 632 provides, "[U]pon the request of any party appearing at the trial," the trial court "shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial." Generally a request for a statement of decision "must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision." (See ibid.)

As discussed, Carmen filed a timely request for a statement of decision on June 18, 2021, eight days after the family law court announced its ruling on June 10, 2021. One of the underlined headings in that request was entitled "Sensitive Photographs/Videos," and cited Carmen's May 27, 2021 pocket brief seeking the return of those photographs and videos. Carmen asked for a statement of decision addressing "[a]ll factual and evidentiary findings and legal authorities relied upon by the Court in denying Carmen's request that all photographs and videos that depict her in any state of undress taken of her by Michael, with or without her knowledge, during marriage should be awarded to her, with Michael keeping no copies, and further enjoining Michael from disseminating copies of any such photographs and videos." Under Code of Civil Procedure section 632, Carmen was entitled to a statement of decision on this issue.

Failure to issue a requested statement of decision does not require reversal unless the appellant can show prejudice. (See F.P. v. Monier (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1099, 1108 ["a trial court's error in failing to issue a requested statement of decision is not reversible per se, but is subject to harmless error review"].) Here, there was prejudice. A statement of decision "provides us with the trial court's reasoning on disputed issues and 'is our touchstone to determine whether or not the trial court's decision is supported by the facts and the law.' [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 287.) The family law court deprived Carmen of that" 'touchstone'" on the issue of the photographs and video. The court did not otherwise provide that touchstone in its June 10 decision or final judgment, neither of which expressly addressed the issue of the photographs and video.^[4]

We recognize that the family law court found Carmen's request for a statement of decision untimely, reasoning that the court's June 10 decision was "final," not "tentative." (See Code Civ. Proc., § 632 [request for statement of decision must be made within 10 days of "tentative" ruling].) This was error. Because the court had yet to enter judgment, its June 10 decision was still subject to modification, and properly could have been characterized as tentative for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 632. (See Horning v. Shilberg (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 197, 203 ["Until entry of judgment, the court may vacate or change a previously rendered verdict as it sees fit."].)...