Family Law Appeals

Christopher C. Melcher, a Chambers & Partners Band 1 high-net-worth family law attorney at Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP, served as appellate counsel for Suzanne Jahnke in this family law appeal by her ex-husband. The parties settled their divorce by marital settlement agreement, awarding a ranch property to Wife as part of the property division, “together with the debt thereon.” There was no express provision for Husband to be removed as a debtor from the joint mortgage, unlike other provisions in the agreement that had details about handling joint debt. Husband argued that the parties intended for him to be removed as a debtor. Christopher C. Melcher successfully argued that implied terms are not allowed for a contract unless necessary to effectuate the purpose of the agreement, and that removing Husband from the debt was not necessary for the ranch to be awarded to Wife. The express terms of the agreement required her to be responsible for paying the debt, and there was no requirement to pay off the loan early or sell the property to have him removed as a co-borrower. The court of appeal agreed and published that part of its opinion.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF McCONNELL AND JAH… Dist., 1st Div

Christopher C. Melcher, Steven K. Yoda, and Cynthia J. Ponce of Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP, recognized as a 2026 Tier 1 Best Law Firm® for Family Law in Los Angeles and Band 1 by Chambers & Partners for high-net-worth family/matrimonial law, represented the Husband in defeating an appeal by the Wife of the dismissal of her action for legal separation. Wife filed a rather than an action for legal separation, rather than one for dissolution of marriage, because she did not meet the 6-month residency requirement to file for divorce in California. The trial court dismissed the case when Steven K. Yoda pointed out that our client did not consent to a judgment of legal separation, which is a requirement before any such judgment be entered. After her case was dismissed and she appealed, Christopher C. Melcher successfully defended the dismissal. The court of appeal, in a case of first impression, held that consent must be given by the respondent to a judgment of legal separation as required by statute.

In re Marriage of Patel, 117 Cal. App. … Dist., 3rd Div

Christopher C. Melcher, a Chambers & Partners Band 1 high-net-worth family law attorney at Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP, and Cynthia J. Ponce, recognized as a Key Team Lawyer in California Family Law by The Legal 500, represented the Husband in this appeal by a former Wife, who claimed that she was owed upwards of $1 billion from an alleged breach of their marital settlement agreement many years earlier. At trial, Husband raised the defense of laches, which is an equitable doctrine that prevents a party from making a claim when there has been an unreasonable delay that has prejudiced the other party. The trial court denied Wife’s claim due to laches. On appeal, Wife argued that laches does not apply as a defense to a family law judgment. Christopher C. Melcher successfully argued that laches is a legally available defense to a family law judgment that awards property to a party.

In re Marriage of Goldman, 107 Cal. App… Dist., 1st Div

Christopher C. Melcher and Cynthia J. Ponce of Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP, recognized as a 2026 Tier 1 Best Law Firm® for Family Law in Los Angeles and Band 1 by Chambers & Partners for high-net-worth family/matrimonial law, represented the wife in a dispute over the discovery of records from the company that the husband founded. The company objected to a deposition subpoena for the production of the records, claiming among other things that the request was filed beyond the deadline imposed by law. We successfully argued that the order of compelling the production of documents was valid. In this published decision, the court of appeal also decided whether expenses occurred to mediate a discovery dispute are recoverable under the Civil Discovery Act.

IN RE MARRIAGE OF MOORE, 102 Cal. App. … Dist., 3rd Div

Christopher C. Melcher and Cynthia J. Ponce of Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP, recognized as a 2026 Tier 1 Best Law Firm® for Family Law in Los Angeles and Band 1 by Chambers & Partners for high-net-worth family/matrimonial law, represented the former Wife in this appeal by nonparty corporations, which claimed that they should not have to pay $25,000 each in discovery sanctions for resisting subpoenas tied to the marital estate. At trial, Wife sought monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act, arguing that the corporations’ failure to comply with her subpoenas forced her to incur substantial legal fees. The trial court agreed and granted Wife’s motion for sanctions. On appeal, the corporations argued that fees incurred during voluntary mediation after a motion to compel is filed cannot legally be included in a discovery sanctions award. Christopher C. Melcher successfully defended the core discovery orders but the appellate court established a new precedent, ruling that while pre-motion meet-and-confer costs are fully compensable, post-motion mediation expenses must be excluded from a discovery sanctions award.

IN RE MARRIAGE OF MOORE, 102 Cal. App. … Dist., 3rd Div

In this appeal, the husband challenged two rulings. First the husband claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for attorneys fees for the trial in his marital dissolution action. The second ruling was a denial of his request for attorneys fees for the appeal that he had filed as to the judgment that was rendered at the end of the trial. The court of appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying trial court fees because the husband over-litigated the divorce by making unmeritorious claims. The court also held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying fees for the appeal because the husband failed to establish any reasonable basis to appeal the judgment. Christopher C. Melcher of Walzer Melcher Yoda LLP,  was not involved in the underlying proceedings, but asked the court of appeal to publish its decision so that it could be used as precedent for other cases in family court. The court of appeal agreed to publish its decision based on his request. This case is important to show that when a party makes claims that are unsupported by the evidence, the court may deny a request for fees to that party.

IN RE MARRIAGE OF NAKAMOTO AND HSU, Cal… Dist., 3rd Div

The court held that a premarital agreement made in 1994 was unconscionable under a new test it created that contradicts the version of the California Uniform Premarital Agreement Action that applies to agreements of that vintage. Top family law attorney Christopher C. Melcher requested the California Supreme Court to depublish the opinion.

Zucker – Request for Depublication May 3, 2022

Zucker-Petition for Review

The trial court found that a marital settlement agreement failed to divide the spouse’s interest in a judgment against third parties, using the stringent test in Family Code section 852 for transmutations instead of the more relaxed rule in section 2550 for marital settlement agreements. The court of appeal reversed but also used the transmutation standard in its analysis. Top family law attorney Christopher C. Melcher, on behalf of the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (ACFLS), asked the California Supreme Court to depublish the decision. Read his letter here.

ACFLS Request for Depublication: May 19, 2020 – Safarian v. Govgassian

Top family law attorney Christopher C. Melcher is Amicus Counsel in Marriage of Brace, a matter pending before the California Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal asked the California Supreme Court to answer whether, under California law, a property acquired by spouses in joint tenancy is community property or if the spouses hold equal separate property interests in the joint tenancy.

Christopher C. Melcher’s Amicus Brief

Request to Divide Oral Argument Time, Executed

Application to File Amicus Curiae Brief

Blumberg Amicus Curiae Brief

Opinion by California Supreme Court

The mother (Monasky) took an infant away from the father (Taglieri).  The mother and father were both living in Italy.  Mom took the baby to the US.  Dad filed an action to return the child to Italy.

The Hague Convention “addresses a pressing and never-ceasing policy problem—the abductions of children by one half of an unhappy couple” in order to gain an advantage in the child-custody determination accompanying the marriage’s dissolution. When one parent unilaterally moves the child within a nation, that nation’s domestic law is capable of resolving the dispute. But when a child is abducted across international borders, an agreement among nations was needed to provide a prompt and effective mechanism for resolving the dispute.

“The Convention’s mission is basic: to return children ‘to the State of their habitual residence,’ to require any custody disputes to be resolved in that country, and to discourage parents from taking matters into their own hands by abducting a child.”

“Habitual residence” is thus the linchpin of the Convention’s protections— the Convention is “based on the principle that the best interests of the child are well served when decisions regarding custody rights are made in the country of habitual residence.”

This case presents two questions regarding the Convention’s habitual residence standard—the standard of appellate review for district courts’ determinations of habitual residence; and whether an actual agreement between the parents regarding the place where the child will be raised is a necessary prerequisite to establishing the child’s habitual residence.

Top family law attorney Peter M. Walzer filed an amicus brief for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers(AAML) supporting the father’s position in this appeal.

Amicus Brief
Supreme Court Opinions

The wife in this appeal claimed the family court should have characterized money she borrowed from her family in China as belonging to her family members, not as community property.  Wife also claimed the award of spousal support was too low to meet the marital standard of living. Top family law attorneys Christopher C. Melcher and Steven K. Yoda successfully defended those rulings on appeal on behalf of the husband.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision in full.

Respondent’s Brief

Opinion by the Court of Appeal, 6th District

A mother of young children wanted to relocate them from San Francisco to Denmark because the mother was hearing impaired and believed there were more resources for her to use Danish Sign Language.  The family court denied the move and the mother appealed, claiming the judge did not give proper weight to her disability.  Top divorce attorney Christopher C. Melcher represented the father, a founder of a publicly traded company.  Christopher was able to have the case name anonymized and information redacted from the appeal to protect the privacy of the family.  After briefing, the mother voluntarily dismissed the appeal.

Respondent’s Brief

This appeal involved how to calculate child support when a tax return for the last year had not been filed.  The wife claimed that a mistake was made by setting support on the husband’s base salary and ordering him to pay additional child support according to what his tax return showed as income when filed.  Top divorce attorney Christopher C. Melcher respresented the husband. After breifing the appeal, the parties settled and the appeal was dismissed.

Respondent’s Brief

Top family law attorney Christopher C. Melcher represented the father of a child who had petitioned the Los Angeles Superior Court for child custody orders. The mother, a former number 1 tennis player, claimed that the Republic of Belarus had jurisdiction over the child. The trial court ruled in father of the mother. Chris was hired and sought an emergency stay by the Court of Appeal to prevent the mother from removing the child from California, which was granted pending the outcome of my client’s appeal. The appellate court held that California had jurisdiction.

Appellant’s Opening Brief

Appellant’s Reply Brief

Remittitur

Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

Reply re Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

Response to Sur-Reply

Order re petition for writ of supersedeas granted

Christopher C. Melcher and Steven K. Yoda appealed a child support order involving a famous film director who made over 300,000 dollars per month in income but was only ordered to pay 8,500 dollars in child support. We convinced the Court of Appeal that the trial court made an error in awarding such a low amount of support and had the case sent back for a new hearing.

Opening Brief
Respondent’s Brief

Reply Brief

Opinion by the Court of Appeal, Second District

Steven K. Yoda and Christopher C. Melcher appealed an order requiring a United States service member to pay part of his combat related service pay to his former wife as a division of community property. We convinced the Court of Appeal that the trial court lacked authority to divide that benefit under federal law.

Opening Brief
Respondent’s Brief

Opinion by the Court of Appeal, Third District 

Christopher C. Melcher is amicus curiae in this appeal, which raises the issue (1) whether the trial court has statutory authority to strike a timely responsive pleading of a party and enter that party’s default in a family law action for failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Family Code , and (2) whether the trial court possesses the inherent authority to impose such a sanction in the absence of express statutory authority.

Amicus Brief
Opinion by the Court of Appeal, Third District 

Christopher C. Melcher, Leena S. Hingnikar, and Scott M. Klopert were appellant counsel for Husband.  Wife appealed a ruling against her on a breach of fiduciary duty claim.  Husband moved to dismiss the appeal because the order she appealed from was not appealable.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Motion to Dismiss

Christopher C. Melcher and Peter M. Walzer were co-appellate counsel with Garrett C. Dailey on this successful appeal to the California Supreme Court.  Chris was the lead trial counsel for Frankie Valli  in the underlying divorce action.  One of the issues at phase three of the trial was the character, division, and valuation of a life insurance policy Frankie purchased during marriage on his life with community funds.  Randy Valli was named the owner of the policy for income tax purposes and argued that the policy was her separate property because it was titled in her name.  Frankie countered that the policy was bought during marriage with community property, so it is community property.  The trial court agreed with Husband and awarded the policy to Husband as community property.  Randy appealed and convinced the Court of Appeal that the policy was her separate property because it was titled in her name.  Frankie petitioned for review and the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court properly characterized the policy as community property.

Opening Brief on the Merits in the California Supreme Court

Decision by the California Supreme Court

Christopher C. Melcher served as co-appellate counsel with James M. Donovan, Michael Glenn, Anthony D. Storm in opposing a writ petition filed by Wife regarding mediation confidentiality.  Husband and Wife settled the marital dispute in mediation.  They prepared and exchanged the required financial disclosures in mediation.  Wife later moved to set aside the settlement agreement, claiming lack of disclosure and other grounds.  Wife demanded that Husband produce a copy of the disclosures that were prepared in mediation.  Husband objected because any documents prepared in the course of mediation are confidential and are not subject to discovery.  The trial court agreed with Husband’s position, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

Opposition to Petition for Writ

Decision by the Court of Appeal, Second District 

Christopher C. Melcher and Anthony D. Storm were substituted in as appellant counsel for Husband to file a reply brief on his cross-appeal.  The case involved the validity of a premarital agreement, which the trial court ruled was invalid.  The major issue was whether an award of attorney’s fees to Wife was sufficient.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders.

Reply Brief on Cross-Appeal

Unpublished Decision

Christopher C. Melcher and Anthony D. Storm were appellate counsel for Husband in opposing Wife’s appeal of an order that her trust income should be counted for purposes of making a support order against her.  Wife dismissed eventually her appeal.

Respondent’s Brief

Christopher C. Melcher and Shannon Stein were appellate counsel for Husband in opposition to Wife’s appeal of an order allowing withdrawal of funds from a 401k account.  Husband filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and Wife agreed to dismiss the appeal.

Motion for Involuntary Dismissal

Christopher C. Melcher and Jennifer M. Riemer were the appellate counsel for Maurizo R., who sought the return of his son who had been kidnapped from Italy by the child’s mother.  The trial court denied Maurizio’s application to return the child under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, finding that there would be a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Italy.  The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that the trial court was required to order the child’s immediate return to Italy, for custody proceedings in that country.

Opening Brief

Reply Brief

Decision by the Court of Appeal, Second District 

Christopher C. Melcher and Jennifer M. Riemer were appellant counsel for Wife in opposing Husband’s appeal. Husband claimed that the trial court erred when it issued evidentiary sanctions against him for his attorney’s negligent failure to file a witness list and exhibit list for trial, as required by local court rules in effect at that time.  The Court of Appeal held that Husband failed to show any prejudice and affirmed the decision.

Respondent’s Brief

Unpublished Decision

In a story that has become all too familiar, Deborah Diaz and Alex Montenegro could not agree on custody and visitation over their son, Gregory. During the child custody proceedings, Diaz and Montenegro entered into various stipulations, confirmed by the trial court, “resolving” their disputes over Gregory.  In the last such stipulation, Diaz and Montenegro agreed to joint legal custody of Gregory, with Diaz having primary physical custody.

When Gregory was to start kindergarten,  however, they were unable to resolve their differences and asked the trial court to modify its last stipulated custody order. After an adversarial hearing, the trial court awarded primary physical custody to Montenegro based on the “best interests” of the child. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the trial court applied the wrong standard.

Finding that two of the stipulated orders were final judicial custody determinations, the Court of Appeal held that the custody arrangement was subject to modification only if Montenegro established a significant change in circumstances. The California Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that the trial court properly applied the best interest standard, rather than the changed circumstance rule.

Although the Supreme Court concluded that stipulated custody orders may be final judicial custody determinations for purposes of the changed circumstance rule, it also recognized that many stipulated custody orders not intended to be final judgments.

After this case attorneys representing parties in custody cases were careful to make sure a custody order that was intended to be “permanent” was so designated in the stipulated order or if contested, that the court hearing the matter found or the record that the order was a permanent order.

Our founding partner, Peter M. Walzer, appeared as Amici Curiae on behalf of Minor Child with the following people and organizations: Leslie Ellen Shear, Encino, for Levitt and Quinn Family Law Center, Inc., Association of Certified Family Law Specialists, Inc., Los Angeles, Harold J. Cohn, Douglas Darnell, Robin Drapkin, Lyn Greenberg, Lee Lawless, San Diego, Hugh McIsaac, Nancy Oleson, Philip M. Stahl, Richard Warshak, Leonard Weiler, San Ramon, and Linda Wisotsky.