Full Opinion

Filed 10/23/26 Lipana v. Centravel CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR FERDINAND LIPANA et al., B350251 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV05324) v. CENTRAVEL, INC., Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel S. Murphy, Judge. Dismissed. Ferdinand Lipana, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bernadine Lipana, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Eanet, Matthew L. Eanet, Diana Ponce-Gomez for Defendant and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Two judgment debtors appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to reconsider their claims of exemption under Code of Civil Procedure section 703.510, et seq. We conclude that the order denying the motion for reconsideration is non-appealable and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Centravel, Inc. (Centravel) brought criminal charges against its former employee, Ferdinand Lipana (Ferdinand),1 alleging that he embezzled in excess of $5 million from the company during his employment. Ferdinand ultimately pled guilty to the criminal charges and was sentenced to over six years in prison. Centravel also filed a civil action against Ferdinand and his wife, Bernadine Lipana. The parties settled the civil action. As part of the settlement, the Lipanas entered into stipulated judgments in Centravel’s favor totaling approximately $4.5 million. When Centravel attempted to collect on the stipulated judgments, the Lipanas filed claims of exemption, asserting that all their earnings were necessary to support themselves and their family. In response, Centravel 1 As this action involves multiple members of the Lipana family, we refer to Ferdinand and Bernadine by their first names in the interest of clarity. No disrespect is intended. 2 filed motions asking the trial court to rule on the Lipanas’ claims of exemption. At the hearing on Centravel’s motions, the Lipanas both offered sworn testimony.2 On October 8, 2025, the trial court entered an order denying the Lipanas’ claims of exemption. The court concluded that the Lipanas “failed to produce any evidence substantiating the amounts” stated on their claims of exemption or establish that all their funds were necessary to support themselves or their family. On October 13, 2025, the Lipanas filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that their financial circumstances had changed since they filed their initial claims of exemption. In particular, they noted that Bernadine lost her job on September 29, 2025, and that Ferdinand was incurring medical expenses “for insulin and Mounjaro.” In support of their motion, the Lipanas attached medical bills showing they had paid approximately $1,800 in medical expenses to date, and had an additional $1,600 in outstanding medical debt. Centravel opposed the motion, arguing the Lipanas failed to show new or different facts justifying reconsideration that could not have been raised earlier. Centravel also argued that the Lipanas failed to fully disclose significant assets, including two real estate properties and four luxury vehicles. Centravel additionally noted that the Lipanas had significant cash assets. Financial records showed that the Lipanas withdrew approximately $45,000 from their checking accounts shortly after Centravel attempted to enforce the stipulated judgments. Records also indicated that the Lipanas 2 The record on appeal does not include a transcript of these proceedings. 3 received $40,000 from a personal injury settlement. Centravel argued the Lipanas could not account for the whereabouts of these funds. Centravel also noted the Lipanas’ purported inability to satisfy the judgments was belied by evidence that they took multiple luxury vacations that year to Philadelphia, New Jersey, Indonesia, Japan, and Europe. Additionally, Centravel presented evidence that the Lipanas gave significant cash gifts to friends and family. Centravel’s opposition was accompanied by a declaration from its counsel attaching documents reflecting the Lipanas’ finances and attesting to the Lipanas’ testimony at the original hearing on their claims of exemption. On November 5, 2025, the trial court denied the Lipanas’ motion for reconsideration, concluding they “failed to show that the amounts claimed are ‘necessary for the support of the judgment debtor or the judgment debtor’s family.’ [Citation.]” The court pointed to evidence that the Lipanas “possess[ed] substantial assets, including multiple vehicles, real property in California and Arizona, luxury goods, cash kept at home, and a $40,000 personal injury settlement.” The court also noted that the Lipanas were “unable to explain tens of thousands of dollars in bank transfers” and were able “to provide cash gifts to friends and family, and to afford extensive travel.” On November 6, 2025, the Lipanas filed a notice of appeal, stating they were appealing from the “November 5, 2025 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Claim of Exemption.” The trial court’s November 5, 2025, order was attached to their notice of appeal. 4 DISCUSSION Centravel argues that we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because the trial court’s November 2025 order denying the motion for reconsideration is not an appealable order. Centravel is correct that the “[d]enial of a motion for reconsideration is not an appealable order.” (People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 959, 973.) “However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as part of an appeal from that order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (g).) Here, the underlying October 2025 order denying the Lipanas’ claims of exemption was appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 703.600.) But the Lipanas’ notice of appeal did not identify the October 2025 order as an order being challenged on appeal. Instead, the Lipanas’ notice of appeal only stated that they were appealing the November 2025 order denying their motion for reconsideration. The trial court’s November 2025 order was the only document attached to the notice of appeal. In their opening brief on appeal, the Lipanas expressly stated that they are challenging “the trial court’s November 5, 2025 order denying their motion to modify and reconsider the denial of the statutory Claims of Exemption.” And the only arguments raised in the Lipanas’ opening brief concern their motion for reconsideration. While we must liberally construe the notice of appeal, “the policy of liberal construction ‘does not apply if the notice is so specific it cannot be read as reaching a judgment or order not mentioned at all.’” (In re J.F. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 70, 78, quoting Filbin v. Fitzgerald (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 154, 173.) As the Lipanas’ notice unambiguously states they are only appealing the November 5, 2025, order, we cannot construe it as reaching the trial 5 court’s underlying October 2025 order. We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal and it must be dismissed.3 Even if we considered the Lipanas’ appeal of the November 5, 2025, order on the merits, we would affirm. “A trial court’s ruling on a motion for reconsideration is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) “[I]t is generally accepted that the appropriate test of abuse of discretion is whether or not the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances before it being considered.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 987.) On appeal the Lipanas argue the trial court erred in relying on the evidence submitted in Centravel’s opposition to their motion for reconsideration. But to preserve this argument on appeal, the Lipanas had to object to Centravel’s evidence in the trial court. (See Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 342.) Nothing in the record suggests that they did so. “[I]f it is not in the record, it did not happen.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609, fn. 11.) Accordingly, we can only conclude that the Lipanas have failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. The Lipanas also argue that the trial court wrongfully ignored evidence that Bernadine lost her job and that Ferdinand was incurring medical debt. The record shows the trial court considered this evidence and found that it failed to establish that all of the Lipanas’ funds were necessary for their support. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.4 3 The Lipanas’ request for judicial notice is denied as moot. 4 We also note that the Lipanas have likely forfeited their arguments on appeal by failing to provide any citations to the record supporting their factual representations and failing to provide citations to pertinent legal 6 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Centravel is awarded its costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ZUKIN, P. J. We concur: MORI, J. DAUM, J. authority developed through cogent legal argument. (See Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246; Cal. Rules Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), 8.204(a)(2)(C).) This forfeiture would separately compel us to affirm the trial court’s order if we reached the merits of the appeal. 7