Does a Family Law Court Order (Page 15) order requiring the Attorney General to hold the Child Support Fund and distribute the funds as an undertaking or a writ of execution?

Next, we examine whether the order created a writ of execution. "Execution has been defined as 'a process in an action to carry into effect the directions in a decree or judgment.' [Citation.] It has been allowed in enforcement of the provisions of settlement agreements where compliance was ordered by the decree. [Citations.] While the decree should state with certainty the amount to be paid [citations], it is sufficient if the amount may be definitely ascertained by an inspection of the record." (Foust v. Foust (1956) 47 Cal.2d 121, 124.) Child support orders are enforceable by writ of execution. (Code Civ. Proc., 699.510, subd. (b); Fam. Code, 290.) However, a writ of execution requires or commands that a payment be made. (People v. Willie (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 43, 48.) In the instant case, the trial court directed Father's attorney to hold the money at issue and not distribute it. Accordingly, this was not a writ of execution because money was not ordered to be paid.

We now turn to whether the court created an injunction. "Family law court is a court of equity." (In re Marriage of Calcaterra & Badakhsh (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 28, 38.) The court's equitable powers allow it to enjoin collection of judgment pending resolution of other issues. (Erlich v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 551, 556.) The

Page 15

court's order is restraining Father's civil attorney from dispersing money. The fact that the order is enjoining Father's attorney from dispersing money causes the order to be in the nature of an injunction. (See People v. Kelley (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 418, 423 [injunctions enjoin activities].) An undertaking was not posted in this case; however, undertakings are not required to be posted in family law cases. (In re Marriage of Guasch (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 942, 948-949.)