In re Marriage of Huntley
10 Cal. App. 5th 1053
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Frank filed for dissolution in Dec 2011; Deanna was served but did not respond, and a default judgment dissolving the marriage was entered Oct 2012 that made no property orders.
- Frank’s initial property declaration listed only the house (negative equity); other community assets (PERS retirement, union pension, deferred comp, household furnishings, vehicles) existed but were not adjudicated.
- After learning of the default request, Deanna signed a grant deed conveying her interest in the house to Frank.
- In Nov 2014 (over two years after the default judgment), Deanna moved under Family Code § 2556 to adjudicate omitted/unadjudicated community property; the trial court denied the motion for failure to first move to set aside the default judgment and found the parties had informally divided assets.
- Deanna appealed; the appellate court reversed and remanded for division under Fam. Code §§ 2550 and 2556.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deanna) | Defendant's Argument (Frank) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2556 allows postjudgment adjudication of omitted community property without first setting aside a default judgment | § 2556 grants continuing jurisdiction to adjudicate omitted community assets; no motion to set aside is required | Default judgment finality and CCP § 473 require setting aside the judgment first; parties effectively divided assets postjudgment | Court: § 2556 is the specific statute allowing continuing jurisdiction; no prior motion to set aside required |
| Whether the default judgment’s silence meant community property remained to be divided | Judgment’s silence leaves community property unadjudicated and subject to future litigation | The parties’ postjudgment conduct (deed, title entries, property split) constituted an informal division | Court: Silence means assets were omitted and remain subject to § 2556 adjudication |
| Whether knowledge of assets by a party bars relief under § 2556 | Knowledge at time of judgment does not bar postjudgment relief for omitted assets | Frank: Deanna was aware of assets and took no timely action; estoppel to later claim | Court: Prior knowledge is not a basis to deny § 2556 relief (citing Huddleson) |
| Whether an informal, extrajudicial division (deed, titles) satisfies § 2550 requirements for unequal division | Agreement between parties can divide community property, but must be written or orally stated on record per § 2550 | Frank: The grant deed and practical division show parties actually divided assets by agreement | Court: Informal division not reduced to writing or recited in open court does not satisfy § 2550; trial court failed to perform statutory duty to divide property |
Key Cases Cited
- Henn v. Henn, 26 Cal.3d 323 (Cal. 1980) (a dissolution judgment silent on assets leaves community property unadjudicated and subject to later division)
- Lakkees v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.3d 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (statute providing postjudgment relief for omitted assets has no time limit and applies despite dismissal/default)
- Huddleson v. Huddleson, 187 Cal.App.3d 1564 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (knowledge of an asset at time of judgment does not bar later postjudgment claim for omitted asset)
- Thorne v. Raccina, 203 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (general principle that final judgments normally cannot be altered, but subject to specific exceptions)
- In re Marriage of Georgiou & Leslie, 218 Cal.App.4th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (whether benefits were actually litigated and divided controls, not mere mention)
- In re Marriage of Brewer v. Federici, 93 Cal.App.4th 1334 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (parties may agree to unequal division but agreement must be based on accurate understanding of relevant assets)