The California Court of Appeal has upheld a trial court's order that allows Michele Uriarte to collect over $1 million in unpaid child and spousal support from her ex-husband, Gyorgy Matrai. The court's decision, filed on October 20, 2026, affirms a charging order that directs Matrai's limited liability company, Goodwood Properties, LLC, to pay any distributions owed to him directly to Uriarte. This ruling is significant for individuals seeking to enforce family court orders, especially in cases where traditional assets may not be available.
The case, Uriarte v. Matrai, docket number A168443, centers around a marital dissolution action initiated by Uriarte against Matrai. The dispute arose from Matrai's failure to pay court-ordered support payments, which led Uriarte to seek a legal remedy through a charging order. The court's ruling not only confirms Uriarte's right to collect the owed amounts but also emphasizes the enforceability of family court orders through corporate entities.
Background
Michele Uriarte and Gyorgy Matrai have been embroiled in a marital dissolution action since May 2019. During this time, Uriarte has accused Matrai of failing to fulfill his financial obligations, including over $1 million in unpaid child and spousal support, attorney fees, and sanctions. In her request for a charging order, Uriarte stated that Matrai's limited liability company was the only asset available to satisfy the court's orders.
On March 13, 2023, Uriarte filed her request for a charging order under Corporations Code section 17705.03. This legal mechanism allows creditors to collect debts owed by a member of a limited liability company by directing the company to pay distributions owed to that member directly to the creditor. The trial court scheduled a hearing for May 22, 2023, where Uriarte's request was ultimately granted.
The Ruling
The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Uriarte, affirming the trial court's order for a charging order. The court noted that Matrai had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that he was not properly notified of the hearing. The court stated, "Matrai has failed to establish any error in the trial court’s May 22 order and therefore affirm."
The court further explained that Matrai's arguments lacked proper citations to the record or relevant case law, which limited the court's ability to review his claims effectively. The judges emphasized that Matrai's failure to include necessary documents in the appellate record forfeited his challenges regarding notice of the hearing and the substantiation of Uriarte's request.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals involved in family law disputes. It reinforces the idea that charging orders can be a viable method for enforcing family court judgments, especially when traditional assets are not available. The court's decision clarifies that family courts have the authority to issue charging orders against a spouse's interest in a limited liability company to ensure compliance with support obligations.
The ruling also serves as a reminder to parties in legal proceedings about the importance of adhering to procedural rules. Matrai's failure to provide adequate documentation and legal citations ultimately hindered his ability to contest the trial court's decision. This case highlights the necessity for individuals to be well-prepared and informed when navigating legal processes.
What's Next
While the California Court of Appeal has affirmed the charging order, it is unclear whether Matrai will seek further legal recourse. The court did not specify if Matrai plans to appeal the decision to a higher court. Details about any related cases or pending appeals were not available in the court filing.