Stevenot

Stevenot v. Stevenot

Good Law
154 Cal. App. 3d 1015
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 1984No. A021541California9,285 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

King, J.

In this case we explore the most repetitively troublesome issue in the family law field over the last 40 years, the issue of what constitutes extrinsic fraud justifying the setting aside of a judgment and marital settlement agreement in a family law action, and what constitutes intrinsic fraud and thus is insufficient to achieve this result. We analyze this issue mindful of changing times and the changing relationships between spouses, including overdue legislative recognition of such changes by eliminating the longstanding statutory mandate that the husband is the manager of the community property, and replacing it by providing effective January 1, 1975, that *1057 the parties have equal rights of management and control of the community. 1 Here, Richard G. Stevenot appeals from an order granting Pamela D. Stevenot’s motion to set aside her default entered November 2, 1981, and the interlocutory judgment of dissolution of their marriage entered January 4, 1983, based upon the trial court’s finding of extrinsic fraud. Pamela’s motion did not seek to set aside the marital settlement agreement executed by the parties, which was incorporated into the interlocutory judgment,…

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.