Thorne v. Raccina
203 Cal. App. 4th 492
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- 1999 dissolution; Laura to receive 16% of Steven's military retired pay starting 2008 based on 1999 rank/pay.
- 2010 Laura moved to set aside, seeking modification to align with California law and the time-rule.
- Trial court found the MSA complied with California law and amended the pension division to time-rule, acknowledging Laura’s claim.
- Laura asserted omitted-asset and extrinsic-mistake theories, relying on JAG advice as erroneous.
- Steven argued the judgment fixed Laura's share and was not subject to modification or relief under 473(b) or Family Code provisions.
- Court holds the trial court erred, reverses, and directs denial of Laura's set-aside motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to modify a final judgment | Laura: there is continuing jurisdiction to adjust omitted or misdivided assets | Steven: no jurisdiction; six-month/one-year limits apply | No; no jurisdiction to modify; set-aside time limits expired |
| Whether the pension was an omitted asset under Family Code 2556 | Laura: pension partially omitted; 2556 divines remaining assets | Steven: judgment fully allocated pension; no omission | Not an omitted asset; judgment fixed Laura's 16% under 1999 terms |
| Whether extrinsic fraud or extrinsic mistake supports relief | Laura: relied on JAG; extrinsic mistake warrants relief | Steven: mistake was intrinsic; relief not available | Extrinsic fraud/mistake not established; relief denied |
| Whether parol evidence or extrinsic testimony can alter unambiguous contract terms | Laura: parol evidence should interpret intended time-rule division | Steven: contract unambiguous; parol evidence inadmissible | Term unambiguous; parol evidence not controlling |
| Whether the forfeiture-for-remarriage clause is enforceable | Laura: clause void under Civ. Code 1669; unenforceable | Steven: clause enforceable | Forfeiture clause void; unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Melton, 28 Cal.App.4th 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (omitted asset distinguished; pension division not merely an estimate)
- In re Marriage of Simundza, 121 Cal.App.4th 1513 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (fixed agreement on future pension; no omitted portion beyond specified amount)
- Mejia v. Reed, 31 Cal.4th 657 (Cal. 2003) (equal-division rule; parties may agree to non-equal division)
- In re Marriage of McDonough, 183 Cal.App.3d 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (final judgment generally unmodifiable except under relief rules)
- Berry v. Berry, 216 Cal.App.3d 1155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (express reservation of jurisdiction; omitted-asset doctrine)