Prosser v. Osborne
Filed 7/13/06 Prosser v. Osborne CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| REGINA PROSSER, Appellant, v. MARK OSBORNE, Respondent. | B183512 (Super. Ct. No. BD378636) |
APPEAL from orders and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James D. Endman, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Frances L. Diaz for Appellant.
John L. Dodd & Associates and John L. Dodd; Hermes & Glavin and William P. Glavin for Respondent.
_________________________________
Regina Prosser appeals from: (1) the denial of her motion to vacate a marital settlement agreement (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b)) and the concomitant judgment that was entered to enforce that agreement (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6); and (2) the denial of her post-judgment motion to set aside the divorce judgment that was brought under Family Code section 2122. Because the judgment became final before the court ruled on Prosser's Family Code set aside motion, we dismiss her appeal to the extent it is aimed at either the judgment or the order denying her original motion to vacate. We affirm as to the order denying her post-judgment motion.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Regina Prosser and Mark Osborne were married in April 2000 and later had a daughter, Tatum. Prosser filed for divorce in October 2002. By September 2004, Prosser and Osborne had two major disputes pending in their divorce action: (1) Osborne wanted Prosser held in contempt for moving away to Northern California with Tatum, in violation of court orders; and (2) Prosser had a motion pending based on her contention that Osborne had shirked his statutory obligation to give her information concerning the value of Osborne's interests in several limited liability corporations. After a day-long mandatory settlement conference, Prosser and Osborne, and their attorneys, signed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that, among other things, divided up their assets, set the amount of child support, required Prosser to move back to Santa Monica with Tatum, waived spousal support, awarded joint legal and physical custody of Tatum and set a schedule for the girl's living arrangements, and called for Prosser and Osborne to take off calendar their contempt and discovery motions upon execution of the judgment. The MSA said that parties intended the agreement to be enforceable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. It also said the judgment would include â€
