Marriage of Hershberger
Filed 5/24/13 Marriage of Hershberger 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
In re the Marriage of
RICHARD HERSHBERGER and MELIKE
DEWEY HERSHBERGER.
_________________________________________________________
RICHARD HERSHBERGER,
Respondent,
v.
MELIKE DEWEY HERSHBERGER,
Appellant.
B245241
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BD546278)
APPEAL
from the judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Teresa A.
Beaudet, Judge. Affirmed.
_____________
Melike
Dewey Hershberger, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No
Appearance for Respondent.
_____________
Melike Dewey Hershberger, whom the superior court has
determined to be a vexatious litigant, appeals from the judgment of nullity of
her marriage to Richard Hershberger.
The
underlying facts are described in our opinion in a previous, related appeal and
need not be repeated in detail here.
(See In re Hershberger (Aug. 31, 2012, B236505) [nonpub.
opn.].) In summary, Richard suffers from
dementia, and two professional fiduciaries (Emily Stuhlbarg and Richard Norene)
currently serve as conservators of his person and estate. In June 2010 (before the conservatorship
proceedings were initiated), Melike picked up Richard from his residence, drove
him to Las Vegas, married him there, and dropped him off at his residence a few
days later, having charged all expenses for the trip to his credit card. (Ibid.)
On June 9, 2011, Richard’s conservators
filed on his behalf a petition for nullity of his marriage to Melike. The record reflects that Melike demurred to
the petition. The trial court overruled
the demurrer, and the record reflects that Melike did not thereafter file a
timely response to the petition.
On November 1, 2012, the court conducted
a “[d]efault [n]ullity [t]rial.†Melike
did not appear at the trial. The court
entered a judgment of nullity, and Melike timely appealed.
Melike’s
only argument on appeal is that the judgment is not supported by substantial
evidence, because the witnesses who testified at trial did not know Richard at
the time of the marriage and consequently could not know whether he was of
“unsound mind,†within the meaning of subdivision (c) of Family Code section 2210,
at that time.
title="">[2] The argument lacks merit. At trial, the court admitted
that Richard was of unsound mind when Melike married him in June
2010. The expert acknowledged that she
did not meet Richard until October 2010, but she nonetheless was able to offer
an expert opinion as to whether he was able “to understand the condition of
marriage†in June 2010, and she explained the basis for that opinion, which
Melike does not address. The expert’s
testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support the trial court’s
determination that Richard was of unsound mind when he married Melike. (See Roddenberry
v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 651-654 [explaining the
substantial evidence standard of review].)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall
recover his costs of appeal, if any.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J. CHANEY,
J.
refer to Richard and Melike by their first names.
opening brief on appeal also refers to issues relating to allegedly inadequate
service. Insofar as Melike is claiming
that the petition for nullity of marriage was not properly served on her, she
has forfeited the issue by failing to provide an adequate record. (Rancho
Santa Fe Assn. v. Dolan-King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th
28, 46 [appellant bears the burden of providing a record sufficient to
demonstrate prejudicial error].) The
docket reflects that a proof of service of the summons and petition was filed
on July 7, 2011, but Melike chose not to include it in the appellant’s
appendix.
