Civ. No. 12213 | Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 13, 1942
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to enter a final decree of divorce nunc pro tunc as of April 2, 1932. Though an answer was filed to the petition it raised no real issue, and, since it was submitted without proof, the cause will be treated as before us on the petition which we will treat as not controverted, as though submitted upon demurrer.
Prom the petition and the affidavit of petitioner filed with the application in the superior court it appears that on April
On May 11, 1942, the petitioner applied to the respondent for the entry of a final decree to be dated and filed nunc pro tunc as of the date she was entitled to have a final decree entered. Her application was denied upon grounds which have not been stated.
Her right to a final decree is statutory. Section 132 of the Civil Code. When there has heen no reconciliation, and no facts occurring subsequent to the entry of the interlocutory decree showing fraud or mistake, the provisions of the section are mandatory. (9 Cal. Jur. p. 767; Claudius v. Melvin, 146 Cal. 257" court="Cal." date_filed="1905-02-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/claudius-v-melvin-3301619?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3301619">146 Cal. 257 [79 Pac. 879]; Keller v. Keller, 122 Cal. App. 712" court="Cal. Ct. App." date_filed="1932-04-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/keller-v-keller-3284445?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3284445">122 Cal. App. 712 [10 P. (2d) 541].)
Petitioner rests her case upon section 133 of the Civil Code as amended in 1935 and which reads in part: “Whenever either of the parties in a divorce action is, under the law, entitled to a final judgment, but by mistake, negligence or inadvertence the same has not been signed, filed or entered” the court may cause a final judgment to be entered as of the date when the same could have been given or made if applied for. The historical background of this legislation and the reasons for its enactment are considered in Macedo v. Macedo, 29 Cal. App. (2d) 387 [84 P.2d 552" court="Cal. Ct. App." date_filed="1938-11-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/macedo-v-macedo-1284473?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1284473">84 P. (2d) 552], where the court said (p. 391) : “The act is both curative and remedial, and the retroactive operation of such statute should be given effect unless it disturbs some vested right or impairs the obligation of some contract. (Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [89 Pac. 352]; Kent’s Comm. 455.) ” The Macedo ease is decisive of all the points raised by respondent relating to the interpretation of the statute.
It is not denied here that there are no property rights in
Let a writ issue as prayed.
Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.
Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 8, 1942.