Filed 9/29/20 Marriage of Heatley CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of MAUREEN O’GRADY HEATLEY and ROBERT HEATLEY. H047789

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. 16FL177177)
MAUREEN O’GRADY HEATLEY,

Respondent,

v.

ROBERT HEATLEY,

Appellant.
Appellant Robert Heatley appeals from an order entered by the Family Court regarding several financial matters (Order). The parties have reached a global settlement and jointly move for a summary reversal of the Order. We grant the motion and reverse the Order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2019, the Family Court entered an order on support arrears, a QDRO issue, and some reimbursement issues. The Court also imposed Family Code section 271 sanctions against Robert in the amount of $50,000. After the Court denied a motion for new trial on December 20, 2019, Robert filed a timely notice of appeal on January 10, 2020.

After the record was filed in this court but before briefing could commence, the parties reached a global settlement of all issues related to the appeal. This agreement includes a provision that the parties seek relief from this court reversing the Order. To this end, the parties have filed a joint application for stipulated reversal.

II. DISCUSSION
III.
On appeal Robert contends that the trial court committed prejudicial errors in failing to allow him a reasonable opportunity to prepare in response to the expert’s declaration, in erroneously calculating severance, and in not deferring the ruling. Robert further contends that the sanctions order was not supported by substantial evidence, was premature and was excessive as a matter of law. Maureen agrees that it is “reasonably probable” that at least one of these errors would require reversal.

The reason that the parties have stipulated to a reversal, as outlined in the application, is they agree that if the appeal were prosecuted to its conclusion, the Order would be reversed. Summary reversal of the judgment, they contend, would place the parties in the same position they would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion, and would save both private and judicial resources because it would obviate the need for briefing by the parties and review of the record by this court.

The parties’ joint application supports the conclusion that summary reversal pursuant to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the application, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. This is an appeal from a family law order involving two individual litigants. The issues on appeal involve private financial interests, including the terms of a QDRO and the characterization of components of income. The Order does not involve public issues or child support. Further, the public interest is served by a speedy resolution of family law matters through a negotiated settlement, not only because it promotes future cooperation between the parties, but it conserves judicial resources. In this case, the global resolution of all outstanding issues will not only obviate the need for this appeal, but it will eliminate the need for further litigation in the trial court.

This court further finds that the parties’ grounds for requesting reversal are reasonable. Both parties are experienced financial professionals and have reached this global settlement of all issues after extensive negotiations and consultation with counsel. Encouraging settlement outweighs the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and outweighs the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. According to the application, the parties attempted to settle the matter prior to trial and appeal, to no avail. The parties correctly argue that the public trust in the courts is enhanced, not eroded, when parties agree to resolve their disputes without further litigation, resorting to the courts only for the resolution of the merits of a case. (See Union Bank of Cal. v. Braille Inst. of Am. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324.)

IV. DISPOSITION
V.
The October 28, 2019 order is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The matter is remanded to the trial court to effectuate the settlement between the parties. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

_______________________________

Greenwood, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

Grover, J.

________________________________

Danner, J.

Heatley v. Heatley

No. H047789