Marriage of R.L. and T.L. CA1/1

── Marriage of R.L. and T.L. CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/8/26 Marriage of R.L. and T.L. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of R.L. and T.L. R.L., Respondent, A170564 v. (San Mateo County T.L., Super. Ct. No. 21FAM00978) Appellant. Over a year before respondent R.L. filed this action to dissolve the parties’ marriage, she and appellant T.L.1 executed a mediated marital separation agreement (the MSA), which characterized a ranch property acquired during their marriage as R.L.’s separate property and included mutual waivers of spousal support in the event of their divorce. Following a bifurcated trial, the trial court ruled that the MSA was valid (the MSA proceedings). 1 Because this matter involves protected parties in domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) proceedings and children in proceedings under the Family Code, we refer to the parties by their first and last initials to protect their privacy and their children’s privacy. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(1).) 1  T.L. brings this interlocutory appeal from the judgment in the MSA proceedings. (Fam. Code, § 2025.)2 He does not challenge the trial court’s central finding that there was no undue influence in the MSA’s execution, but claims both its characterization of the ranch and its waivers of spousal support are invalid. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling concerning the ranch. As for the spousal support waivers, we agree with T.L. that the evidence did not support the court’s ruling that the MSA was either an agreement for “an immediate separation” or one executed after the parties had separated. (§ 3580.) We reverse the judgment in the MSA proceedings insofar as it validates the spousal support waivers, and remand for further proceedings in accord with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND3 R.L. and T.L. married in February 2000 and have three children. R.L. has an undergraduate degree and obtained a juris doctor and master of business administration during the marriage. She then worked in venture 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. 3 We include in our recitation of the factual and procedural background a brief summary of the proceedings on the parties’ respective domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) requests, as reflected in R.L.’s appendix filed on April 14, 2025. Whether or not those proceedings are properly construed as separate actions from this one (see In re Marriage of Reichental (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 396, 404 [DVRO may be issued in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or an independent action]), the appendix provides relevant context that is an appropriate subject of judicial notice. We consider it for that purpose alone. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d); Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, 382 [taking judicial notice of documents from related action as to their existence and a court ruling they reflect, and to provide “background information regarding the [parties’] dispute,” but not as to the truth of factual statements therein], disapproved on another ground by Vo v. Technology Credit Union (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 632, 647.)