Schnabel

Schnabel v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1217·30 Cal. App. 4th 758·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 677·94 Daily Journal DAR 16883·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9139
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1994G015808California3,126 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

This case presents an interesting twist on the old adage, “three’s a crowd.” Orange Container, Inc. (Orange Container), a close corporation in which the Schnabels own 30 percent of the stock, has become a partisan in the war between them. The corporation has taken sides, and has done so in an egregious manner, implicating every single ground supporting joinder in the California Rules of Court. Although joinder of a third party to a family law proceeding is compelled only in the rarest of circumstances, such is the case here. We therefore hold it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to join the firm to these proceedings.

I

The Schnabel sagas are already the subject of a small body of jurisprudence. (See Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 200 , 854 P.2d 1117 ]; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 548 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 169 ].) For now, suffice to say that after unsuccessfully seeking discovery of various corporate records, Marilyn sought to join the corporation as a party to the dissolution action. The trial court denied the motion; she then filed a writ petition. We issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.