1DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/5/1 - May 01, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/5/1

California First District Court of Appeal 3h 8m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening case and who are the parties?

Unknown 0:46

remotely uh for circumstances beyond our control. Uh we apologize for that. And again, we thank you for your cooperation. Uh all right, so let's get started and we'll call the first case and that is Rebecca Lynn versus Terrence Lynn. If I could get the parties to enter their appearance starting with the appellant.

Deborah Bull 1:06

Good morning, Your Honors. Deborah Bull appearing on behalf of Terry Lynn.

Unknown 1:12

Thank you, Ms. Ball. Good morning. Christopher Melcher, Walzer Melcher and Yoda, on behalf of Rebecca Lynn, the respondent. Okay, thank you, uh Mr. Melcher. So uh Ms. Bull, we're gonna start with you. You received our tentative opinion and uh and why don't you tell us what you think we got wrong?

Deborah Bull 1:31

I did, Your Honor. Thank you very much for the tentative. I think that it is very helpful to know the court's reasoning. I really only have three points that I would like to address with respect to that tentative. And I will attempt to keep them brief. I do unappreciate you have a long calendar. So The date of separation is my first point. On that, the court has in its tentative uh submitted this back for remand for a new trial on. The date of separation at which new evidence can be taken. And I request the court to reconsider that remand and instead send it directly back. For the hearing Um, on Terry Lynn's twenty twenty two request for order for temporary spousal support, which is what set this whole thing in process.

Deborah Bull 2:25

Um And your

Unknown 2:26

reason is because you you believe there was uh Um because substantial evidence wasn't shown to support the trial court's finding. Is that correct?

Deborah Bull 2:33

Uh Your Honor, it's because there was um This court found that the lower court made an implicit finding on the uh immediate separation element that there was no substantial evidence to support that. And that There there wasn't ev evidence, there was a trial, there were witnesses, that there's therefore no reason to have a new trial on that element and we'd request that it uh The spousal support waiver simply be found invalid.

Unknown 3:03

All right, thank you.

Deborah Bull 3:04

Thank you. On the second point with respect to the ranch, um, I'm requesting that the court simply confirm my understanding, which is that The courts finding that there was a transmutation in twenty twenty um resolves the issue that was before the court of whether or not the twenty twenty MSA was valid. Um it does not resolve whether or not Uh, there were uh there were breach of fiduciary duty or in undue influence in the twenty seventeen acquisition. That wasn't before the court. It was carved out from the lower court. And because the court м режекд Terry Lynn's theory. that the twenty seventeen um issues. flowed through to render the twenty twenty MSA invalid. I'd appreciate that ruling, but I'd because of that, I would like to clarify that

Deborah Bull 4:09

The twenty seventeen acquisition is nonetheless still a a separate thing that happened in the marriage. It raises issues of fiduciary breach. um and undue influence that Will be addressed at a later point. They were carved out and they aren't before the court. In to resolve in this opinion.

Unknown 4:27

So I'm I'm not understanding. What is the clarification you're seeking on this point?

Deborah Bull 4:30

Uh the clarification is simply that at one point in the tentative opinion, the this court references that the lower court found moot the twenty seventeen. Issues, conduct. And The clarification is that mootness. Only involves whether or not the twenty twenty MSA is valid, not whether there was a problem with With that conduct. Terry Lynn still has a due process right. To raise claims of fiduciary breach with respect to that conduct, it's never been heard or resolved. And um it still remains separate and apart.

Unknown 5:09

And why do you think you need additional clarification? But what is the opin tentative lacking? Well, we're deciding the issue that's been presented to us. It it are you asking us to go a little bit beyond that?

Deborah Bull 5:19

No, Your Honor, just to I think It sounds like no further clarification is needed that this only involved the validity of the twenty twenty MSA. Um, but the reason in part, this flows into my third and final point, was that under section 1a,