Woolsey v. Woolsey

discussion.

1 In this marital dissolution case, appellant Clark Woolsey persuaded respondent Anna Woolsey to participate in a church-sponsored reconciliation session that turned into a mediation1 of issues regarding division of property, support, and custody of their two children. The mediation resulted in a marital settlement agreement that divided the community property, permanently waived Anna‘s2 entitlement to spousal support, and presented a parenting plan in which the parties‘ children would remain in Anna‘s primary care. The agreement declared that the parties had disclosed all of their financial matters during the mediation. Anna moved to enforce the agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Clark apparently changed his mind about the terms of the agreement and opposed entry of judgment. After a trial, the court entered judgment on the agreement. The court also made custody and visitation determinations in the same judgment. Clark appeals, contending (1) the marital settlement agreement is unenforceable for lack of timely financial disclosures under Family Code sections 2104 and 2105,3 (2) the parties‘ noncompliance with Placer County Local Rules of Court,…

I concur in the result.

I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s analysis in part II of the Discussion, in which the majority invalidates a local rule of court in its entirety.

The majority invalidates the Superior Court of Placer County, Local Rules, rule 30.7 (local rule 30.7), which provides that no marital settlement agreement (MSA) involving an unrepresented litigant “will be approved” unless the unrepresented party’s signature is notarized or acknowledged by the clerk, 1 and the signature appears below the following notice: “ ‘The undersigned party has been advised to consult an attorney regarding the subject matter of this agreement, but has declined to do so.’ ” 2 (Id., subd. B.) Clark contends the written MSA is invalid because it does not meet these requirements. In cursory briefing concerning the validity of the rule, consisting of a single sentence that essentially mirrors the cryptic argument advanced in the trial court, 3 Anna contends that the local rule is invalid because a single requirement of the rule—the notary requirement—conflicts with Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The majority, on the other hand, concludes that the local rule is…

In this marital dissolution case, appellant Clark Woolsey persuaded respondent Anna Woolsey to participate in a church-sponsored reconciliation session that turned into a mediation 1 of issues regarding division of property, support, and custody of their two children. The mediation resulted in a marital settlement agreement that divided the community property, permanently waived Anna’s 2 entitlement to spousal support, and presented a parenting plan in which the parties’ children would remain in Anna’s primary care. The agreement declared that the parties had disclosed all of their financial matters during the mediation.

Anna moved to enforce the agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Clark apparently changed his mind about the terms of the agreement and opposed entry of judgment. After a trial, the court entered judgment on the agreement. The court also made custody and visitation determinations in the same judgment.

Clark appeals, contending (1) the marital settlement agreement is unenforceable for lack of timely financial disclosures under Family Code sections 2104 and 2105, 3 (2) the parties’ noncompliance with the Superior Court of Placer County,…