Summary
The California Supreme Court held that a divorce judgment obtained after a wife's involuntary deportation must be vacated for extrinsic fraud where the husband concealed from the court that her absence was involuntary, depriving her of a fair adversary hearing. The court also found that the wife was denied adequate representation because no formal substitution of attorneys occurred and the attorney who appeared on her behalf failed to present evidence, cross-examine, or even know the cause of her absence. The wife's delay in seeking relief was not inexcusable neglect given her reasonable efforts to contact counsel and re-enter the United States. The case establishes that a party's failure to disclose a spouse's forced absence from dissolution proceedings constitutes extrinsic fraud warranting equitable relief.
Holdings
- Yes, because extrinsic fraud (concealment of involuntary deportation) and inadequate representation by an unauthorized attorney deprived appellant of a fair adversary hearing, and no equitable defenses bar relief.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to vacate the judgment of dissolution based on extrinsic fraud and inadequate representation.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (22)
- Olivera v. Grace (1942) 19 Cal.2d 570(followed)
- Landon v. Landon (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 954(followed)
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. City Etc. of S.F. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 37(followed)
- McMunn v. Lehrke (1915) 29 Cal.App. 298(followed)
- Weitz v. Yankosky (1966) 63 Cal.2d 849(followed)
- Kulchar v. Kulchar (1969) 1 Cal.3d 467(followed)
- Zastrow v. Zastrow (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 710(followed)
- In re Marriage of Coffin (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 139(followed)
- Davis v. Davis (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 788(followed)
- Edison v. Edison (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 632(followed)
Showing top 10 of 22.