Morelock v. Fetter

Filed 2/28/08 Morelock v. Fetter 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William Allen, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI,  21.) Affirmed.

Lawrence Sanborn Morelock, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Office of Lee Harwell, Jr., and Lee Harwell, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________

This is an appeal from a domestic violence restraining order. We affirm.

FACTS

In October 2005, Lawrence Morelock filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Diane Fetter. Although the marriage was terminated in May 2006, property issues remained unresolved and the tension between the parties continued. In October, Morelock and Fetter both filed requests for restraining orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Family Code section 6200 et seq., but both requests were denied for want of sufficient evidence.[1]

In March 2007, Fetter filed another request for a restraining order in which she asked for orders prohibiting Morelock from coming within 100 yards of her, and from harassing, threatening, stalking or contacting her or her children and grandchildren. In a supporting declaration, Fetter (who works for the Department of Children and Family Services) described numerous voicemail messages left by Morelock, as well as unfounded complaints about her that he had submitted to her employer and to the Department of Motor Vehicles. She said that on numerous occasions she had seen Morelock driving around the parking lot where she worked. She said he owned a gun, that he was an alcoholic who frequently lost control, and that she was afraid of him. Morelock denied Fetters allegations (he said he had been living in Nevada) and filed his own application for a restraining order against Fetter.

Following a hearing at which both parties were present (neither was represented by counsel), the trial court granted Fetters request for a restraining order (and denied Morelocks request). Morelocks subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied following a hearing at which Fetter, but not Morelock, was represented by counsel, and Morelock was ordered to pay Fetters attorneys fees ($350). Morelock appeals.

DISCUSSION

The gist of Morelocks pro se brief is that the restraining order against him should not have been issued and he should not have been ordered to pay Fetters attorneys fees. We disagree.

First, Morelocks brief is not supported by any references to the record on appeal, and it offers no meaningful legal argument. For these reasons alone, the presumptively correct orders must be affirmed. (Sabbah v. Sabbah (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 818, 822-823; McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546.)

Second, Morelocks claim that there is no evidentiary support for the orders is nothing more than a request for us to reweigh the evidence, and that we will not do. Credibility calls are made by the trial court, not us. (Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478-479; Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 613, 622-623; In re Marriage of Martin (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1196, 1200.)

Third, to the extent Morelock challenges specific items of evidence considered by the trial court, those issues were forfeited by Morelocks failure to object below. (People v. Seijas (2005) 36 Cal.4th 291, 301.)

Fourth, Fetters declaration constitutes substantial evidence and reasonable proof of past acts of violence and, as such, supports the restraining order. ( 6300-6301; In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614; Quintana v. Guijosa (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1079; Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1052; Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873-874.)

Fifth, Morelocks motion for reconsideration was properly denied on the ground that no new evidence was presented (and Morelock does not point to any evidence in the appellate record to suggest there was anything new put before the trial court). (Tunis v. Barrow (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1069, 1076.)

Sixth, the attorney fee award was authorized by sections 271 and 6344. To the extent Morelock claims the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay, he has not pointed to anything in the record to suggest that the court failed to follow the law, and the presumptively correct order must thus be affirmed. (Estate of Goulet (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1074, 1077, fn. 1; Minton v. Cavaney (1961) 56 Cal.2d 576, 579, fn. 1.)

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed. Fetter is entitled to her costs of appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

VOGEL, Acting P.J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, J.

JACKSON, J.*

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

______________________________________________________________________________

*Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

[1] All section references are to the Family Code.