Marriage of McConnell & Jahnke

── Marriage of McConnell & Jahnke ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of JASON MCCONNELL and SUZANNE JAHNKE. JASON MCCONNELL, A172525 Appellant, v. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CVFL-2020-74287) SUZANNE JAHNKE, Respondent. Appellant Jason McConnell challenges a judgment entered in this marital dissolution action based on a written settlement agreement between him and his ex-wife, Suzanne Jahnke. In his primary claim, McConnell contends that the trial court erred by ruling that the parties’ agreement that “awarded” Jahnke the marital “home, and all debts thereon” did not require her to remove him from their jointly held mortgage. We reject this contention and McConnell’s other claims and affirm. In the published part of the opinion, we conclude that although the provision at issue made Jahnke solely responsible for the mortgage, it unambiguously did not include an implied term requiring her to remove McConnell from the * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part II.B. mortgage. In so concluding, we hold that a divorcing party who agrees to assume a joint mortgage in a property settlement cannot be forced to remove the other spouse from the mortgage absent an explicit term requiring it. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jahnke and McConnell married on December 23, 2005. They worked as vintners and owned over 200 acres of land near Ukiah, living together in a home on Rivino Ranch Road that Jahnke built before the marriage (the home). In April 2015, Jahnke added McConnell to the home’s title. The following February, the parties obtained a $700,000 mortgage on the home with a Mendocino County bank. Jahnke and McConnell separated on April 25, 2020. Two months later, Jahnke filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On December 30, 2021, the marriage was terminated by a status-only judgment. At the time the parties separated, the balance on the home’s mortgage was approximately $650,000. The order does not appear in our record, but the trial court apparently directed Jahnke to pay spousal support and cover the mortgage, even though McConnell continued living in the home. In the course of contentious attempts to disentangle the parties’ property, Jahnke apparently secured a writ of possession against McConnell requiring him to remove his personal property from the home. McConnell apparently obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Jahnke, and she sought one against him, appealing when it was denied. After settlement discussions were unsuccessful, the parties appeared for a trial on March 11, 2024. During a recess, they reached an agreement, and when they returned they stated several components of their agreement for the record. Later that afternoon, the parties filed their written 2 memorandum of understanding (MOU) and confirmed on the record that it was “what [they were] agreeing to.” In the MOU, the parties agreed that Jahnke would receive virtually all the community property. She was “awarded . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [t]he real property . . . at . . . Rivino Ranch Road, . . .and all debts thereon.” Jahnke was also “awarded [¶] . . . [a]ny and all interest held by [McConnell],” including “debts [and] liabilities,” in two companies: Pink Sands, Inc., which operated the winery and tasting room, and Riverwine, LLC, which held title to most of the acreage. McConnell, in turn, received an equalization payment of $