Conae v. Conae
| Decision Date | 12 March 1952 |
| Citation | 241 P.2d 266,109 Cal.App.2d 696 |
| Parties | CONAE v. CONAE. Civ. 18849. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Leola Buck Kellogg, Rendondo Beach, Montgomery G. Rice, La Habra, of counsel, for appellant.
McLaughlin & Casey, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order fixing alimony, attorney's fees and costs, pendente lite, on the ground that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing at which the order was made.
Facts: On May 8, 1951, plaintiff filed suit to annul his marriage to defendant.
July 27, 1951, defendant filed her answer. At the same time she filed an affidavit as a predicate for alimony, attorney's fees and costs pendente lite.
An order to show cause was issued pursuant to the affidavit fixing the date of hearing as August 8, 1951. Among other things the order contained this provision: '(3) This order shall be served by personally delivering a copy thereof attached to a copy of the affidavit upon which it is based, together with a copy of the Form denominated 'Husband's Questionnaire,' to the party affected at least five days prior to the date of hearing.' The order to show cause was served on plaintiff's attorney but was never served personally upon plaintiff.
At the time of the hearing the court made the order from which the present appeal is taken.
Questions: First: Did the trial court have jurisdiction to make an order fixing temporary alimony, attorney's fees and costs pendente lite notwithstanding the order to show cause was not served on plaintiff personally?
Yes. Section 1015 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads in part as follows: 'But in all cases where a party has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers, when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party, except service of subpenas, of writs, and other process issued in the suit, and of papers to bring him into contempt. * * *'
In the present case plaintiff had appeared in the action through an attorney and the foregoing provision of section 1015, Code of Civil Procedure, authorized the service of the notice of motion for alimony pendente lite, etc. upon his attorney. (Moore v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. 238, 242, 263 P. 1009; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 21 Cal.2d 580, 583, 134 P.2d 251; Benway v. Benway, 69 Cal.App.2d 574, 582, 159 P.2d 682.)
Second: Was the provision in the order to show cause that notice be served personally upon plaintiff a nullity and void?
Yes. Section 1015 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the method of service of the notice of motion here in question, and it makes no provision that it should be served upon the party personally.
A court may not by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morelli, In re
...That it is proper in noncontempt matters is clear. (Reynolds v. Reynolds, 21 Cal.2d 580, 583, 134 P.2d 251; Conae v. Conae, 109 Cal.App.2d 696, 697, 241 P.2d 266; Russ v. Russ, 68 Cal.App.2d 400, 405--406, 156 P.2d 767; Miller v. Miller, 57 Cal.App.2d 354--359, 134 P.2d 292.) The attorney o......
-
Forslund v. Forslund
...where he has an attorney of record, that he be served personally when he resides out of the state. (See Conae v. Conae, 109 Cal.App.2d 696, 697-698, 241 P.2d 266, where it was held that a provision in the order to show cause that the party be served personally was a nullity and Jurisdiction......
-
Woolsey v. Woolsey (In re Ofanna)
...(Cf. Butterfield v. Butterfield, [ sic ] 1 Cal.2d 227, 228; Henry v. Willett, [ sic ] 60 Cal.App. 244, 252.)” (Conae v. Conae (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 696, 697, 241 P.2d 266.) Thus, we conclude rule 30.7 is invalid insofar as it imposes additional requirements on entry of judgment on a mediate......
-
Woolsey v. Woolsey
...and void. (Cf. Butterfield v. Butterfield, [sic] 1 Cal.2d 227, 228; Henry v. Willett, [sic] 60 Cal.App. 244,252.)" (Conae v. Conae (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 696, 697.) Thus, we conclude rule 30.7 is invalid insofar as it imposes additional requirements on entry of judgment on a mediated agreeme......