Marriage of Stevenot, In re

• Decision Date: 25 April 1984
• Citation: 202 Cal.Rptr. 116,154 Cal.App.3d 1051
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re the MARRIAGE OF Pamela D. STEVENOT and Richard G. Stevenot. Richard G. STEVENOT, Appellant, v. Pamela D. STEVENOT, Respondent. A021541.

Page 116

202 Cal.Rptr. 116

154 Cal.App.3d 1051

In re the MARRIAGE OF Pamela D. STEVENOT and Richard G. Stevenot.

Richard G. STEVENOT, Appellant, v. Pamela D. STEVENOT, Respondent.

A021541.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

April 25, 1984.

Hearing Denied June 20, 1984.

Gregory A. Manchuk, San Jose, Atkinson & Farasyn, Mountain View, for appellant.

Hugh T. Thomson, Thomson & Kilduff, Santa Clara, Jerald Infantino, Carroll, Infantino, George & Oliver, San Jose, for respondent.

KING, Associate Justice:

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 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, and the court specifically refrained from acting on this issue.

Richard was a 49-year-old engineer. Pamela, 26 years old, had completed high school and was employed as a waitress. Richard filed his petition for dissolution of marriage in propria persona on August 10, 1981, alleging a five-year marriage ² and no assets or obligations subject to disposition by the court as community or quasi community property.

Pamela was served with the summons and petition for dissolution on August 14, 1981, and executed a written acknowledgment of receipt thereof on the same date. Her default was entered November 2, 1981, after service upon her of a copy of the request to enter default. Richard obtained a default interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage by declaration on January 4, 1983, pursuant to Civil Code section 4511 and California Rules of Court, rules 1241 and 1286.5. The interlocutory judgment incorporated the marital settlement agreement of the parties dated July 8, 1981, as well as two one-page addenda executed September 18, 1982, and December 16, 1982. The marital settlement agreement provided Richard would make specified cash payments to Pamela, transferred specific property to each of the parties as their separate property, made provision for payment of specified debts, included a waiver by Pamela of any interest she had in Richard's pension plan with his employer, provided for the distribution of any tax refunds and contained the following statement: "Each party has made a full disclosure to the other of his current finances and assets [sic], and each enters into this agreement and relies thereon." The September addendum acknowledged Pamela's receipt of cash payments from Richard and an adjustment of the payments due under the marital settlement agreement, while the December addendum acknowledged that all payments to Pamela had been made.

On January 11, 1983, Pamela filed a motion to set aside her default and the interlocutory judgment. Attached to her motion was her supporting declaration stating that, with the exception of four months, she had lived with Richard since she was 19 years old, and "[d]uring the entire relationship, [Richard] had always been very intimidating, bossy, and had complete control of all aspects of [their] relationship, including the finances, running the property, and ownership of property." The declaration set forth the community assets of which Pamela was aware, and stated that in August 1981, when their relationship had deteriorated, Richard became very threatening: "He stated that he was going to go ahead and do the paperwork for the divorce, that he would give me $5,000 and some miscellaneous furniture and my vehicle, that I would not get anything more by going to court, and that there was no use going to a lawyer, since they would charge more than the value of the property I would get in any settlement." Pamela then described threats allegedly made by Richard, and stated "[b]ecause of these threats and the dominating relationship of [Richard] over me, I was intimidated, frightened, and afraid to discuss any of this with my family." She declared that Richard presented her with a separation agreement, which she signed and has not seen since, and a deed to their community property home. After signing the agreement and deed, she moved out. Four months later, when she was unable to "make it on her own financially," Richard allowed her to move back into the residence. "Although we did not continue our husband and wife relationship, the intimidation and overbearing attitude ... continued. During this period, I asked him about the divorce proceedings, and he always gave me an evasive answer." She alleged that when she received the dissolution petition, she did not realize its legal significance as to property. She alleged she did not take action on the petition because she was in a state of fear from Richard's threats. In December 1982 she finally talked to her family about the divorce proceedings; they advised her to get a lawyer, she did, and the motion to set aside was filed. She requested in her motion that "the default be set aside so that the issues of spousal support, property division, and attorneys' fees could be determined."

In response to the motion, Richard filed a declaration denying Pamela's allegations with respect to his threatening conduct; he declared he suggested she speak to an attorney "regarding the divorce;" and he acknowledged that during the marriage he had control of the couple's "finances and property, the reason being not that I wanted to dominate that aspect of our marriage or dominate [Pamela], but rather, because [Pamela] was totally incapable and immature in handling such matters." He declared that he had never told Pamela not to seek the advice of an attorney; he had never prevented her from filing a response to the petition; and he did not "in any way hinder the exercise of her legal rights with respect to these proceedings or to be heard in court." He stated that the delay in obtaining the interlocutory judgment and final judgment resulted from his inexperience, since he appeared in propria persona, and from the clerk's office losing or otherwise misplacing his paperwork.

Pamela's motion was heard on February 1, 1983, with both parties present in court and represented by counsel. The parties were sworn and stated that their declarations filed with the court were true and correct. The remainder of the hearing consisted of offers of proof by counsel of matters not in the declarations, and of argument. ³ Pamela's counsel offered her testimony and that of her father and two sisters with respect to Richard's alleged threats, his answers in response to the status of the dissolution, his furnishing dissolution papers, and the status of the dissolution proceedings. Richard's counsel made offers of proof with respect to the status of property, its value, and discussions of the property by the parties and with respect to furnishing Pamela copies of divorce papers. The trial court, a particularly learned and knowledgeable family law judge, took a recess to carry out independent research on the legal issue of whether the facts constituted extrinsic or intrinsic fraud. Upon his return to the courtroom, the trial court gave the parties a very thoughtful and complete oral statement of decision in which he granted Pamela's motion. ⁴

As might be expected in this appeal, Richard denies any fraud and contends that if any fraud occurred, it was intrinsic fraud and the judgment should not have been set aside, while Pamela contends there was extrinsic fraud and the ruling of the trial court was correct.

For the past 40 years, no family law issue has so regularly captured the attention of the California Supreme Court as has the issue of what constitutes extrinsic and intrinsic fraud. The Courts of Appeal have regularly wrestled with this problem during the same period, and it is likely that hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases have been decided by trial courts during the same period with no appeals having been filed. In 1933, our Supreme Court noted, "The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud is quite nebulous ..." (Caldwell v. Taylor (1933) 218 Cal. 471, 479, 23 P.2d 758.) More recently, one court correctly commented that, "the distinctions between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud are hopelessly blurred. Nonetheless, the California courts have remained married to the importance of the distinction whether or not and in fact it exists." (In re Marriage of Guardino (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 77, 89, 156 Cal.Rptr. 883.) "The viability of the extrinsic-intrinsic distinction has been undermined further by its inconsistent application. While the courts purport to rely on the extrinsic-intrinsic distinction, an examination of California decisions indicates a strong emphasis on the presence or absence of equitable considerations in granting relief. While a party's entitlement to equitable relief depends upon the court's classification of the fraud involved, such inconsistency provides little indication of the likelihood of success under the particular factual circumstances." (Comment, Seeking More Equitable Relief from Fraudulent Judgments: Abolishing the...