California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yolo
In re the Marriage of FRANK and DEANNA HUNTLEY. FRANK HUNTLEY, Respondent,
DEANNA HUNTLEY, Appellant.
from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, No.
FL11001946 Kathleen M. White, Judge. Reversed.
Matthew B. Smith for Appellant.
& BAIR and Pamela A. Bair for Respondent.
Huntley challenges the trial court's denial of her motion
to divide unadjudicated community property under Family Code
section 2556. Deanna filed her motion more than two
years after entry of a default judgment that dissolved her
marriage to Frank Huntley. The trial court denied the motion
on grounds Deanna had not first moved to set aside the
appeal, Deanna contends (1) section 2556 confers the trial
court with continuing jurisdiction to adjudicate omitted
community property without having to first move to set aside
the judgment, (2) the dissolution judgment's silence as
to the division of any property means all of the community
property remains to be divided, and (3) the trial court's
error requires reversal for proper division of the
parties' community property.
conclude section 2556 provided the trial court with
continuing jurisdiction to divide omitted or unadjudicated
community property. The default judgment's silence as to
any division of property requires reversal and remand for
further proceedings under sections 2550 and 2556.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Parties' Community Property
facts of this case are undisputed. Frank and Deanna married
in 2000 and separated in June 2011. As the trial court found,
“Both parties were employed during their marriage and
[Deanna] was in charge of the parties' finances. She paid
the bills. She was employed with the City of Woodland and was
aware of her own employment benefits. [Deanna] was also aware
of all of the parties' assets, their debts, their
furniture, vehicles, and other assets. [Frank] retired
approximately 15 months before the parties separated and
began receiving retirement benefits. [Deanna] was well aware
of these benefits and was also aware of [Frank's]
Deferred Benefit Account, because the parties withdrew
substantial funds from that account during their
trial court further found that “there were other
assets, namely household furnishings, vehicles,
[Deanna's] PERS retirement, and [Frank's] Union
Pension Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan. [Frank's]
Pension Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan were both in pay
status with monthly payments being received by the parties
each month. At one of the hearings in this case, [Deanna]
admitted she was aware of all of these assets.”
for Dissolution of Marriage and Default Judgment
December 2011, Frank served Deanna with a petition for
dissolution of marriage, an income and expense declaration,
and a community and quasi-community property declaration.
Frank's petition stated all community and quasi-community
property was listed in his accompanying declaration. However,
the declaration did not list any property other than a house
with a negative value of $89, 000.
was served with the petition and attached declarations, but
did not respond. In July 2012, Frank filed a request for
default and served Deanna with a copy of the request. In
October 2012, the trial court entered a default judgment. The