Marriage of Ogden CA5

── Marriage of Ogden CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 Marriage of Ogden CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of JILL ANN OGDEN and GILBERT LAWRENCE OGDEN. JILL ANN OGDEN, F089962 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FL-21-002214) v. OPINION GILBERT LAWRENCE OGDEN, Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Joseph R. Distaso, Judge. Gilbert Lawrence Ogden, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION In this marital dissolution case, appellant (Husband) appeals the trial court’s order characterizing an investment account (E*TRADE) as community property in conjunction with an earlier ruling valuing respondent’s (Wife) equity share of a second investment account (Webull) to which Husband had apparently transferred most of the original value in the E*TRADE account. As we will explain, these rulings, even considered collectively, are nonappealable interlocutory orders, we decline to exercise our power to treat the purported appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal because we lack jurisdiction over it.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Husband and Wife married on July 2, 1994, and they separated on August 25, 2021, when Wife filed a petition for marital dissolution. They have no minor children. The matter proceeded to a long-cause hearing in April 2025. Relevant to this appeal, the parties disputed the characterization of an E*TRADE investment account. Husband argued the E*TRADE account was his separate property because the marriage was void for lack of the requisite blood tests required to obtain a marriage license in 1994 under a repealed Family Code statute. (Fam. Code, former §§ 580, 581; see Stats. 1994, ch. 197, § 1, p. 1740 [repealed].) Husband also maintained that, even if the E*TRADE account was community property, it was transmuted to his separate property pursuant to an account transfer request signed by both Husband and Wife in 2016. I. Relevant Trial Testimony A. E*TRADE Investment Account: Characterization Dispute To establish the E*TRADE account was not community property, Husband argued the marriage was void. According to Husband, he had never undergone the blood test required under a repealed statute to obtain a marriage license in 1994. Wife testified she 1 Wife did not file a responsive brief in this appeal. 2. believed the marriage was valid at all times between the date of their marriage and separation. She could not recall whether they underwent blood tests to obtain the marriage license. The court declined to find the marriage void. The court reasoned that even if the marriage was void or voidable, Husband and Wife had lived together as a married couple between 1994 and 2021, and the court could divide property the couple acquired during that time as quasi-marital property. The court explained that as the putative spouse, Wife could request the property be divided as if it were community property. As such, the court ruled that either the marriage was valid, or if not, the parties acted as if the marriage was