Pavlik v. Thompson CA5
F071610
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- Parties married in 1988 while husband was incarcerated; husband had a prior marriage and allegedly obtained a Mexican divorce.
- Wife filed for dissolution in 2006 and later amended to seek a judicial determination the marriage was void (nullity) because husband’s Mexican divorce was invalid under California law.
- The nullity issue was bifurcated and tried in 2011; both spouses testified and counsel participated; trial court found no evidence the Mexican divorce was valid and entered an order adjudicating the marriage null in February 2012.
- Wife died shortly before entry of the nullity order. More than two years later (2015), husband moved to set aside the nullity order alleging extrinsic fraud and estoppel, arguing wife had known earlier about the invalid divorce and concealed facts to secure the nullity ruling.
- Trial court denied the motion as untimely and for failing to present new facts; husband appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pavlik) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of motion to vacate is appealable | Order denying statutory/equitable vacatur should be reviewable | Same | Denial is appealable here because motion alleged extrinsic fraud based on new facts not presented at trial |
| Standard and scope for vacating judgment for fraud | Court should set aside judgment if wife’s conduct was extrinsic fraud | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review; movant bears burden to show extrinsic fraud | Abuse of discretion review; factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; statutory issues de novo |
| Whether husband showed extrinsic fraud preventing his participation at trial | Wife prevented husband from having his day in court by concealing knowledge and filing misleading posttrial brief | Husband had notice and full opportunity to participate; both testified and had counsel; alleged misstatements were intrinsic | Husband failed to show extrinsic fraud; alleged misconduct was intrinsic to the trial and not a basis for late equitable relief |
| Timeliness of relief based on fraud | Equitable relief for extrinsic fraud may be sought after six months; intrinsic fraud requires CCP §473 motion within six months | Husband’s motion filed >2 years later; therefore must show extrinsic fraud to escape §473 six-month limit | Motion was untimely because the asserted fraud was intrinsic; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heathman v. Vant, 172 Cal.App.2d 639 (1959) (distinguishes extrinsic fraud from intrinsic fraud and limits relief for perjury or suppressed evidence)
- Beresh v. Sovereign Life Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.3d 547 (1979) (motion to set aside for intrinsic fraud must be brought within six months)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 96 Cal.App.4th 17 (2002) (explains intrinsic vs. extrinsic fraud and when relief is available)
- Department of Industrial Relations v. Davis Moreno Construction, Inc., 193 Cal.App.4th 560 (2011) (defines extrinsic fraud as deprivation of opportunity to present defense)
- Cope v. Cope, 230 Cal.App.2d 218 (1964) (discusses appealability limits for orders denying motions to vacate judgments)