Marriage of Williams CA4/3

Filed 9/30/25 Marriage of Williams CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of KARL and MARY JEAN WILLIAMS.

KARL WILLIAMS, G064019 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 21D006137) v. OPINION MARY JEAN WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Adrianne E. Marshack, Judge. Dismissed. Karl Williams, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

This appeal stems from the trial court’s denial of appellant Karl Williams’ motion to set aside a judgment entered pursuant to a martial settlement agreement between Karl1 and respondent Mary Jean Williams. As grounds for the set-aside, Karl argued attorney coercion, mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, and failure to disclose, led him to sign the agreement which he characterized as “inherently unfair” and “inequitable.” After Karl filed an opening brief concerning the merits of the appeal, no respondent’s brief was filed, and Karl requested oral argument, nonparty Anna Monika Williams (a nonattorney representing herself) submitted a letter to this court indicating she is the widow of Karl. The letter stated Karl passed away after he requested oral argument and attached a death certificate from Nevada for a “Karl Alan Williams.” In response, this court ordered Karl to clarify the record within 15 days if he was still alive or oral argument would be deemed waived, directed Anna to be served with all filings in the appeal, and notified Anna she had not filed a motion with a declaration sufficient to show she was entitled to appear as a party. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32.) Thereafter, Anna filed a motion requesting she be substituted in as appellant. This court denied the motion without prejudice because it was not accompanied by a declaration, executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state, containing all the specific information listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. As a result, oral argument was deemed waived.