Marriage of Karen and Jason H. CA4/2
E075441
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2021Background
- Karen filed for dissolution in 2013; partial financial judgment entered July 2016 and reserved-issues judgment entered December 2016.
- In June 2020 Jason moved to vacate the court's financial orders under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) and Fam. Code §§ 2121–2122, alleging lack of jurisdiction, fraud/perjury, and that Judge Warren should have recused for alleged contacts with Karen; the motion did not identify specific orders or include verified proof.
- At a July 14, 2020 hearing on Jason's child-support modification, the court (Judge Warren) announced it had reviewed Jason's motion; counsel said he had just seen it online and had not been served; Jason objected to Judge Warren hearing further matters.
- The court denied the motion to vacate as without factual basis, denied modification of support, and immediately imposed $2,500 in monetary sanctions against Jason.
- Jason appealed the denial of the motion to vacate and the sanctions order; the Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the vacatur motion but reversed the sanctions order for lack of procedural due process and insufficient findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jason) | Defendant's Argument (Karen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court's financial orders are void for lack of jurisdiction or procured by fraud/perjury, warranting vacatur under CCP § 473(d) and Fam. Code §§ 2121–2122 | Marriage was invalid so court lacked jurisdiction; Karen committed fraud/perjury in various prior filings; relief required | Superior court has Family Code jurisdiction over dissolution and the motion was meritless, unsupported, and untimely | Denied vacatur. Court had jurisdiction; Jason failed to show fraud/perjury with evidence or timely filing; abuse of discretion not shown |
| Whether Judge Warren should have been disqualified for alleged contacts with Karen | Judge Warren had conflicts of interest from contacts with Karen and thus could not hear the motion | Jason did not follow Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3 verified-statement procedure and forfeited disqualification; prior disqualification motion had been denied | Forfeited. Jason failed to timely file a verified statement and thus forfeited the disqualification claim |
| Whether the court erred by hearing the motion to vacate without formal notice to the parties | Court heard the motion at the support hearing without proper notice, prejudicing Jason | Counsel waived formal opposition and agreed the motion could be argued at that hearing; no prejudice shown | Forfeited or nonprejudicial. Jason failed to show prejudice; counsel had waived opposition and the motion lacked merit |
| Whether sanctions were properly imposed (notice, basis, and findings) | Sanctions were improper because imposed without notice, hearing, or stated legal basis | Karen had signaled she would request sanctions once served, and asked for sanctions at the hearing | Reversed. Sanctions violated due process because Jason had no prior notice/opportunity to be heard and the order failed to state the statutory authority or specific grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. An, 168 Cal.App.4th 558 (discusses setting aside void judgments under CCP § 473(d))
- In re Marriage of Goddard, 33 Cal.4th 49 (defines when orders are void for lack of fundamental authority)
- Tri Counties Bank v. Superior Court, 167 Cal.App.4th 1332 (strict promptness requirement for judge-disqualification claims)
- People v. Bryant, 190 Cal.App.3d 1569 (verified statement procedure required for judicial disqualification)
- Caldwell v. Samuels Jewelers, 222 Cal.App.3d 970 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard before monetary sanctions)
- Barrientos v. City of Los Angeles, 30 Cal.App.4th 63 (trial court must give pre-decision notice specifying authority and grounds for sanctions)
- Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach, 70 Cal.App.4th 1109 (sanctions order must state basis with particularity to satisfy due process)