Hayward

Hayward v. Superior Court of Napa County

Good Law
2 Cal. App. 5th 10·2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 641·206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 102
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 3, 2016A144823California60,792 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Petitioner, Tracy Hayward, and real party in interest, Jose Osuch married in 1996.5 Tracy is the owner of The Perfect Puree of Napa Valley (PPNV), a fruit pureeing business in Napa County; Jose was employed by PPNV and in 2006 Tracy made him a one percent owner. The parties later separated and Tracy filed this petition for dissolution in 2011. Initially, Tracy was represented by Roger Lewis, but after she learned he was formerly the law partner of Robert Blevans, who represented Jose, she replaced Lewis with attorney John Munsill. In January 2012, the superior court ordered Tracy to pay Jose $12,748 per month in temporary spousal support and, as additional temporary spousal support, 40 percent of any distributions or withdrawals from her businesses other than salary and other specified taxable income attributed to Tracy. The order also provided that if Tracy’s tax payments exceeded her taxable obligations, she was required to claim a refund and pay 40 percent of the refunded overpayment to Jose as additional temporary spousal support. Appointment of the Temporary Judge In March 2012, the parties decided not to further litigate the case in the superior…

Lead Opinion

Kline, J.

The issues in this matrimonial case arise from the failure of an attorney serving as a temporary judge pursuant to article VI, section 21, 1 of the California Constitution to disclose grounds for her disqualification in the manner required by a canon of the Code of Judicial Ethics 2 applicable specifically to temporary judges. After the temporary judge had served for about two years, petitioner wife first learned that the judge had not disclosed “in writing or on the record” professional relationships she had had with lawyers in the present proceeding, as required by canon 6D(5)(a) and rule 2.831(d) of the California Rules of Court. 3 Petitioner filed in the superior court a statement alleging grounds for disqualification, to which the temporary judge failed to respond in accordance with statutory procedure. The presiding judge of the superior court ordered the temporary judge disqualified, holding that she was deemed to have consented to her disqualification as a result of her failure to file a consent or verified answer. The case was reassigned to a superior court judge and discovery proceeded.

The present writ petition was filed to challenge certain of the trial…

Dissenting Opinion

Richman, J.

Dissenting.—In February 2011, Tracy Hayward filed a petition to dissolve her marriage; in April, Jose Osuch filed his response. In early 2012, the parties and their attorneys signed a stipulation that Sacramento Attorney Nancy Perkovich be appointed a private judge to handle the matter, an appointment approved by the Napa Superior Court in April 2012. Perkovich presided over hearings and issued orders, including orders that transferred monies between the parties. Perkovich’s last involvement was in 2013, probably October. Meanwhile, without any involvement by Perkovich, the parties engaged in five months of settlement negotiations, culminating in a January 2014 “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOA) signed by the parties and their attorneys. On May 20, 2014, Jose filed a motion to enforce the MOA. Ten days later a new attorney entered the picture.

On May 30, 2014, Tracy’s current attorney—her fourth—substituted in, and began what can only be described as a vituperative attack on Perkovich, on Jose’s attorney—indeed, on the very concept of private judging. It began *64 with a motion to withdraw the stipulation and remove Perkovich, based on her claimed failure to make a…

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.