Judge Israel Claustro, Case CASH v. CASHION 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Israel Claustro, Case: CASH v. CASHION, Date: 2023-06-16 Tentative Ruling

MOTION – JOINDER

Moving Party (MP): Respondent Joseph Cashion

Responding Party (RP): Petitioner Channing Cash

Applicable Law (Joinder)

Joinder is not always necessary. Family law courts have express authority to issue property restraining orders against third parties without ordering their joinder. Fam 2045(a). It is within the court’s discretion to deny a third party joinder motion where its only purpose is to obtain injunctive relief against a non-party who allegedly has control over property of the marriage. Schnabel 30 CA 4^th at 763.

However, under Schnabel v. Superior Court (1992) 21 CA 3d 548 the court found that joinder of the corporation was appropriate where control of financial books and potential for disposing or diluting assets may affect the ability to rule in the action. The joinder of the corporations to that case was appropriate where the “partisan” corporation is really indispensable to the community property, spousal support or attorney fees issues and “necessary” to enforcement of property division judgment.

That principle is extended to parties that share interest in the subject of the litigation. In Family Law case that generally applies to 3^rd parties that are on title or have been put on title to some property that may or may not be subject to a community property division.

Statutory authority for a motion for joinder is found in Family Code section 2021(a) & CRC 5.24. Per CRC 5.24(e)(2) the court has authority to join a 3^rd person where deemed “necessary to the enforcement” of a judgment or order in the proceeding [IRMO Schnabel (1994) 30 CA4th 758, 764-765; Hogoboom & King, CA Practice Guide, Family Law §3:454]. Pleadings used are per Family Code section 2021.

Joinder is permissive where a 3^rd party claims or controls an interest subject to disposition in a dissolution proceeding [CRC 5.24, CRC 5.24(c), CRC 5.24(e)(2); IRMO Glade (1995) 38 CA4th 1441; IRMO Siller (1986) 187 CA3d 36; Hogoboom & King, CA Practice Guide, Family Law §3:452, 3:452b].

Analysis

Respondent brings this motion to include Claimant Noelle Moore (biological daughter of Petitioner) because she is on title to several pieces of community property. Respondent argues that Noelle Moore has legal title to two community property vehicles (See Exhibit 1) and has legal title to the Crestline property that was purchased with community property funds (Exhibit 2).

Respondent seeks to join the Claimant because she was given the proceeds of unauthorized sales of community property assets and has been added to title to the vehicles and real estate assets.

Respondent argues that once the court determines the equalization payment that will be due from Petitioner to Respondent, he will have no way to enforce that judgment if this court does not join Noelle Moore to this matter.

Respondent believes that Noelle Moore has conspired with Petitioner to defraud Respondent of Respondent’s community property interests in the vehicles and in the proceeds from the sale of Pacoima and cash out of San Diego, and Noelle Moore must be joined to this matter in order for him to have a remedy, at least in the form of a lien against the Crestline property that she purchased with community property funds.

The court finds Noelle Moore controls an interest subject to disposition in this proceeding and that she is a necessary third party to the enforcement of a judgment in this case.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to join Claimant Noelle Moore as a party.

Respondent is ordered to give notice and submit a proposed complaint in intervention joining Noelle Moore as a party.