California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re Marriage of Capos is that a family law order establishing child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly stated the relief sought in supporting documentation attached to the formal request, under circumstances where the opposing party received actual notice and filed a substantive response on the merits.

The Rule of In re the Marriage of McConnell and Jahnke is that a divorcing party who agrees to assume a joint mortgage in a property settlement cannot be forced to remove the other spouse from the mortgage absent an explicit term requiring it, under circumstances where a settlement agreement awards one spouse the marital home "and all debts thereon" without specifying removal obligations.

The Rule of In re A.T. et al. is that juvenile courts may not assert jurisdiction under section 300(e) over a child who is over five years old at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, under circumstances where the child suffered severe physical abuse before turning five but had reached age five or older by the time of the hearing.

The Rule of Greely v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot use the spousal exception under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160(b)(2) to levy on deposit accounts held in the name of a bigamous spouse without a court order, because a bigamous marriage is void ab initio and the supporting spousal affidavit is therefore false, under circumstances where the marriage was bigamous at inception regardless of whether it has been formally annulled.

The Rule of In re K.L. is that DCFS satisfies its ICWA initial inquiry duty when it contacts parents and reasonably available extended family members, even if some extended family members remain unreachable despite good faith efforts, under circumstances where the agency attempted contact, obtained disconnected phone numbers, and family members declined to provide contact information without the missing person's consent.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Nishida and Kamoda is that a family law fraud action filed timely in civil court and transferred to family law court may proceed on the merits rather than being dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, under circumstances where the plaintiff filed a civil complaint within the one-year discovery period of Family Code section 2122(a) and the case was properly transferred between departments of the same superior court.

The Rule of In re Z.G. is that a juvenile court may not terminate parental rights merely by finding a likelihood of adoption but must also make one of the additional findings referenced in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), under circumstances where a parent has not received statutorily guaranteed reunification services and was not properly bypassed for such services.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Jenkins is that a default judgment in a family law case must be set aside when it exceeds the relief requested in the petition and the defaulting party lacked adequate notice of the specific assets to be divided, under circumstances where the petition contained only "TBD" placeholders for property division and the prove-up hearing was conducted based on informal, off-the-record communications without proper notice to the defaulting spouse.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Charles and Julie Ann Bowman is that trial courts retain discretion to consider Family Code factors including the losing party's ability to pay when determining the amount of attorney's fees under a prevailing party clause in a marital settlement agreement, under circumstances where the MSA contains a general attorney's fees provision without specific limitations on the court's consideration of equitable factors.

The Rule of Steven N. v. Priscilla C. is that a voluntary declaration of parentage (VDOP) is void as a matter of law when, at the time of signing, a third party is already a presumed parent under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (b), even if that presumed parent status arises from an invalid marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law.

The Rule of Sheerer v. Panas is that a trial court must include all bonus income and restricted stock units (RSUs) in calculating child support under the uniform statewide guideline formula, under circumstances where a parent receives such variable compensation and the court has not made proper findings to deviate from the presumptively correct guideline amount.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Jenkins is that a default judgment in dissolution proceedings that awards specific property division relief exceeds the relief requested where the dissolution petition listed all property division issues as "To be determined," under circumstances where the defaulted party lacked proper notice of the prove-up hearing and the specific property division being sought.

The Rule of Torres v. Munoz is that a court abuses its discretion by citing and relying on fictitious case authorities in its order, but a party forfeits the right to challenge such error when the party's own counsel drafted and submitted the order containing the fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the fictitious nature of the authorities, under circumstances where the party had opportunity to verify citations and speak up before the court signed the order.

The Rule of In re the Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz is that a party forfeits the right to challenge a trial court's reliance on fictitious case authorities when that party's own counsel drafted and submitted the order containing those fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the error, under circumstances where the party had ample opportunity to verify the citations and correct the error in the trial court.

The Rule of Fisher v. Fisher is that intentional infliction of emotional distress can be the legal cause of a wrongful death when the tortious conduct is a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress that leads to the victim's death, under the broader scope of liability standard applicable to intentional torts rather than the narrower "scope of risk" standard used for negligence.

The Rule of J.S. v. D.A. is that indigent inmates in bona fide civil actions that threaten their interests have a right to meaningful access to the courts to be heard in their defense, and trial courts must address and rule on such requests before proceeding without the inmate, under circumstances where an incarcerated defendant requests court assistance to participate in proceedings and the court has notice of the incarceration.

The Rule of In re Reyna R. is that a juvenile court errs in ordering a parent to pay for professional visitation monitoring without first considering the parent's ability to pay or reasonable alternatives when the parent raises a timely objection based on financial inability, under circumstances where the parent objects to professional monitoring costs at the exit order hearing.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Danielle and Lewis Allen is that parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in place, under circumstances where the obligor seeks to enforce an accord and satisfaction agreement for less than the full arrearage amount.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Hoch is that a family court abuses its discretion under Family Code section 271 by imposing sanctions against a party for refusing to stipulate to permit the opposing party to amend a petition from legal separation to dissolution of marriage, under circumstances where the refusal is based on conscientiously held religious beliefs and the moving party could have avoided the costs by initially filing a dissolution petition.

The Rule of Nishida v. Kamoda is that a civil fraud action alleging misrepresentations during family law property settlement negotiations may be transferred to family law court rather than dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, and the action remains timely under Family Code section 2122 if filed within one year of discovering the fraud, under circumstances where the plaintiff files in civil court but the case is properly transferred to family law court.

The Rule of In re O.M. et al. is that uncontradicted evidence of parental inability to acknowledge or address a child's malnutrition compels dependency jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), under circumstances where the parent lacks insight into nutritional deficiencies despite hospitalization for malnutrition and cannot articulate a specific plan to prevent recurrence.

The Rule of Lu v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot levy upon a third party's separate deposit accounts by claiming the account holder is the judgment debtor's spouse when the marriage is void ab initio due to bigamy, under circumstances where the affidavit of spousal relationship supporting the notice of levy is based on a bigamous marriage that was illegal and void from inception.

The Rule of In re Marriage of LaShelle and Nicholas Capos is that a judgment awarding child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly states the relief sought in supporting documents and the opposing party files a responsive pleading addressing the merits, under circumstances where boxes relating to child support on judicial council forms are not checked but the specific relief is nonetheless plainly articulated in accompanying declarations.