McLaughlin

McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 567·2000 Daily Journal DAR 7917·82 Cal. App. 4th 327·98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 136·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6014
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 2000No. B125410California2,993 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Curry, J.

I respectfully dissent. Judgment should not have been entered in the absence of both of the statutorily mandated declarations of disclosure regarding the parties’ assets and liabilities. In this case, neither party filed or *338 served the required preliminary declaration of disclosure. For the trial court to conclude that this was not necessary because the appellant concedes that there are no assets of which she has become aware, ignores the possibility, which gave rise to the enactment of the subject statutes, that the respondent has secreted assets. I would not expand upon the holding in In re Marriage of Jones (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 685 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 542 ], which held that the final declaration of disclosure may be waived under certain circumstances, by holding that both declarations can be waived in the circumstances before us in this case.

A petition for a rehearing was denied August 1, 2000, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 25, 2000.

Lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

*329 Opinion

Introduction

Janet McLaughlin appeals from the trial court’s entry of a judgment of marital dissolution ending her marriage to respondent Donald T. McLaughlin. Appellant contends judgment should not have been entered in the absence of statutorily required declarations of disclosure regarding the parties’ assets and liabilities. However, appellant has failed to show prejudicial error and, therefore, we shall affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Donald and Janet were married in November 1980, and separated in January 1997. 1 They had one child, bom in 1989. On January 9, 1997, Donald filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In February 1997, the parties entered into an agreement as to the distribution of their separate and community property. 2 Donald’s counsel prepared a proposed judgment incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement, and the parties signed the agreement on February 24, 1997. The settlement agreement required Janet to pay Donald $750 per month in spousal support and $637 per month in child support.

On March 17, 1997, Janet filed a notice of rescission of the settlement agreement and stipulation for judgment. Her stated…

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.