In re Marriage of XXXXXXX
Filed 8/25/08 In re Marriage of XXXXXXX 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of BA and PA | |
BA, Appellant, v. PA, Respondent. | D052030 (Super. Ct. No. DN138487) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Alan B. Haber, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed and remanded with directions.
In this dissolution of marriage case, respondent PA obtained a postjudgment order restraining appellant BA XXXXXXX from harassing, following or stalking her; keeping her under surveillance; blocking her movements; or hiring or instructing others to do so. BA appeals, contending observation of an alcohol-abusing parent in public places is permissible because it is relevant to custody and visitation; the order improperly prohibited BA from learning whether PA was drinking excessively or driving while under the influence of alcohol; PA's right to privacy does not include the right to be unobserved while drinking in public places; the order did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6;[1]and PA's subsequent arrest for driving while under the influence of alcohol and guilty plea to driving with a blood alcohol level of .14 percent provides a further reason for reversal.
BA and PA have filed a "Stipulation and Joint Application for Reversal of Order on Appeal and Remand to Trial Court With Directions to Vacate Order." ( 128, subd. (a)(8).) They request this court reverse the order and remand the case to the trial court with directions to vacate the order, with the parties to bear their own costs and the remittitur to issue immediately.
Section 128, subdivision (a)(8) provides: "An appellate court shall not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the following: [] (A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. [] (B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement."
Those requirements are satisfied. Reversal will not adversely affect the public or the parties' minor child. There are no other persons who might be affected. Reversal will not reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement or erode the public trust but will avoid further expenditure of judicial resources. We accept the parties' statement that reversal "will be productive of goodwill between the parties[,] will reduce the expense and persistence of litigation between them[, and] . . . will . . . facilitate settlement of the financial issues between the parties which constitute the majority of the contested issues . . . ." We therefore accept the stipulation.[2]
DISPOSITION
Based on the stipulation of the parties under section 128, subdivision (a)(8), the order is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the order. The remittitur shall issue immediately. The parties are to bear their own costs.
McDONALD, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
[2] BA's motion to admit postorder evidence is denied as moot.
