Marriage of Murphy CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2015G050452California5,604 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Lori petitioned for dissolution of the parties’ marriage in July 2009. She requested that a property located on Sunset Road in Joshua Tree be confirmed as her separate property, and that a property on Memory Lane in Yucca Valley be confirmed as Mark’s separate property. She alleged there were no minor children but requested an award of spousal support be made in her favor. Mark’s response to the petition was similar, echoing Lori’s allegation there were no minor children, and that the Sunset Road property should be confirmed to Lori as her separate property, while the Memory Lane property should be confirmed to Mark as his property. Mark did not seek any award of spousal support, however, asking instead that the court terminate jurisdiction to award spousal support to Lori. The court initially entered judgment in June 2010, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation reached between the parties in May 2010. The judgment essentially mirrored the terms Lori sought in her petition, including confirmation of the Sunset Road property as Lori’s separate property

2 and confirmation of the Memory Lane property as Mark’s separate property. Mark was ordered to pay Lori $300 per month in…

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.