California Legal Brief

The Rule of Torres v. Munoz is that a court abuses its discretion by citing and relying on fictitious case authorities in its order, but a party forfeits the right to challenge such error when the party's own counsel drafted and submitted the order containing the fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the fictitious nature of the authorities, under circumstances where the party had opportunity to verify citations and speak up before the court signed the order.

Appeal from order denying request for shared custody and visitation of pet dog in Superior Court, San Diego County.

Defendant Appellant was Joan Pablo Torres Campos — the former domestic partner seeking shared custody and visitation of a dog named Kyra under Family Code section 2605.

Plaintiff Respondent was Leslie Ann Munoz — the former domestic partner who had custody of the dog and opposed the custody and visitation request.

The suit sounded in family law dissolution proceedings regarding pet custody and visitation. No cross-claims.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that two years after entering an uncontested judgment of dissolution of their domestic partnership in July 2022, Torres filed a request for shared custody and visitation of a pet dog named Kyra under Family Code section 2605. Munoz opposed the request through counsel who cited fictitious case authorities Marriage of Twigg (1984) 34 Cal.3d 926 and Marriage of Teegarden (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1572 in supporting documents. Torres's counsel failed to identify these as fake cases and later drafted the court's order that relied on these same fictitious authorities.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Torres's request for shared custody and visitation of the dog, ruling that based on the fictitious Twigg and Teegarden cases emphasizing parties' well-being and stability in pet custody decisions, it was not in the parties' best interests to continue interacting and Torres lacked substantial relationship with the dog.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the family court's reliance on fictitious case authorities requires reversal of its order denying pet custody and visitation; 2. Whether Family Code section 2605 should adopt a specific multi-factor test for determining pet custody and ownership.

The Appellate Court held that while the family court abused its discretion by citing and relying on fictitious case authorities, Torres forfeited this claim by having his own counsel draft and submit the order containing the fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the error, and Torres failed to provide an adequate appellate record to evaluate his proposed multi-factor test argument.

The case is inapplicable when the party challenging fictitious case citations did not themselves draft or contribute to the order containing such citations, when the party timely objects to reliance on fabricated authorities, or when the party provides an adequate appellate record including reporter's transcript of relevant hearings.

The case leaves open what specific factors courts should consider under Family Code section 2605 for pet custody determinations, whether different forfeiture rules might apply when opposing counsel rather than the challenging party introduces fictitious authorities, and the development of formal guidelines for verification of citations in court orders.