Rubenstein

Rubenstein v. Rubenstein

Bad Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 517·2000 Daily Journal DAR 7087·81 Cal. App. 4th 1131·97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 707·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5364
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 2000B123085California7,485 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiff and appellant Arteena Rubenstein (Arteena) appeals a judgment following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Alan Douglas Rubenstein (Alan).

This is a civil action by Arteena to set aside on the grounds of fraud and perjury a 1994 judgment in a marital dissolution proceeding obtained in the family court, and to recover damages. The essential issues presented are the applicable statute of limitations, the scope of the available remedy, and thereafter, whether this action is time-barred. The trial court granted Alan’s motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.

We conclude this action is controlled by Family Code section 2122, which prescribes a one-year statute of limitations for an action to vacate a dissolution judgment on the grounds of fraud or perjury. The remedy under the statute is a setting aside of the judgment, not a tort action for concealment of community assets. The one-year period begins to run from the date on which the plaintiff either discovered, or should have discovered, the facts constituting the fraud or perjury. (§ 2122; see Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d).)

The record discloses that Alan…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.