Marriage of Heinsohn and Cherednychenko CA1/2, A159594

Don Heinsohn moved to join Tayisiya Dubinina (the niece of respondent Olena Cherednychenko) as a third‑party claimant in the dissolution action, alleging she received community assets (Hawaii real property and proceeds of a debate school, Young Genius).
Court granted joinder Dec. 17, 2018, and directed Heinsohn’s counsel to serve a summons and pleading; court told Dubinina (unrepresented) she would have 30 days after service to file a response and could consult the family law facilitator for help.
Heinsohn’s counsel served the joinder summons and pleading by email on Jan. 10, 2019; Dubinina did not file a responsive pleading within 30 days; counsel requested entry of default and the court entered default Feb. 21, 2019.
Dubinina moved to set aside the default under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b), claiming she relied on advice from the court’s family law facilitator that no response was required and initially did not attach a proposed pleading; the trial court denied relief and later entered a default judgment directing return of property and awarding punitive damages.
On appeal the Court of Appeal held the trial court had jurisdiction despite a prior dismissed appeal, found the denial of relief under § 473(b) was an abuse of discretion (mistake was reasonable; Dubinina had substantially complied with the proposed‑pleading requirement; Heinsohn suffered no prejudice), and reversed the order denying set aside and the default judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dubinina)	Defendant's Argument (Heinsohn)	Held
Whether default judgment is void for noncompliance with CCP §585 and Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800	Default judgment invalid for lack of required procedures	Any defect was harmless; judgment valid	Not addressed on merits (court reversed on other grounds)
Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction to act before remittitur in earlier appeal	Trial court was divested of jurisdiction while prior appeal pending	Appeal was from a nonappealable joinder order, so trial court retained jurisdiction	Trial court had jurisdiction because appeal from joinder was nonappealable and was dismissed
Whether trial court abused discretion under §473(b) by denying motion to set aside default without adequately considering excusable mistake	Denial was error: she reasonably relied on family law facilitator, substantially complied with proposed‑pleading requirement, moved promptly, and opposing party not prejudiced	She failed to attach a proposed pleading and the summons required a response; relief properly denied	Reversed: trial court abused discretion — mistake reasonable, substantial compliance shown, no prejudice; set aside denial and default judgment reversed

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (2005) (trial court divested of jurisdiction during a pending appeal generally)
Hearn Pacific Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc., 247 Cal.App.4th 117 (2016) (appeal from a nonappealable order does not divest trial court of jurisdiction)
Elston v. City of Turlock, 38 Cal.3d 227 (1985) (standards for § 473 relief from default; liberally applied to allow trial on merits)
Grappo v. McMills, 11 Cal.App.5th 996 (2017) (section 473 relief favors trial on merits; slight evidence may suffice where prompt)
Rappleyea v. Campbell, 8 Cal.4th 975 (1994) (orders denying relief from default are scrutinized closely)
Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 244 Cal.App.4th 918 (2016) (substantial compliance can satisfy proposed‑pleading requirement)
Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc., 167 Cal.App.4th 681 (2008) (denying default when opposing counsel failed to warn of intent to take default may be unfair; prejudice must be shown)
Carmel, Ltd. v. Tavoussi, 175 Cal.App.4th 393 (2009) (purpose of proposed‑pleading requirement is to show good faith and readiness to proceed)