In Re Marriage of Fell

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 475·55 Cal. App. 2d 1058·55 Cal. App. 4th 1058·64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 522·97 Daily Journal DAR 7540
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 16, 1997B104323California2,858 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

Today we construe the statutes which control the right of parties to a marital dissolution to waive the mandatory exchange of final declarations disclosing their assets and liabilities. Here, the parties did not exchange either preliminary or final disclosures or income and expense declarations. No statute permitted the parties to waive the exchange of these documents at the time of the instant dissolution.

Because the parties impermissibly purported to waive the mandatory statutory requirements, we affirm the judgment of the trial court setting aside the judgment of dissolution of marriage between appellant, Robert M. Fell, and respondent, Alethea Lailan Fell. (Fam. Code, § 2122, subd. (e).)

Facts

The Fells were married for 18 years, had 2 sons and acquired substantial assets while married. On June 9, 1995, Alethea filed for dissolution of marriage. On the same date, the parties executed their marital settlement agreement (MSA). On June 22, 1995, the parties filed the purported “waiver of declarations of disclosure requirement.”

The stipulated waiver (waiver agreement) states, in pertinent part, “Each of the parties understands that according to the Family Code…

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.