Marriage of Beas CA1/4

Filed 3/19/26 Marriage of Beas CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re Marriage of MARTHA and GILARDO BEAS.

GILARDO BEAS, Respondent, A171912 v. (San Francisco City & County MARTHA BEAS, Super. Ct. No. FDI17788725) Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Martha Beas appeals from the trial court’s August 2024 order denying her request for spousal support of $2,000 a month from respondent Gilardo Beas.2 The court denied her request because, in a June 2021 default

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California

Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1. We provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 2 For clarity’s sake, we refer to the parties by their first names and

mean no disrespect by doing so.

1

judgment dissolving Martha’s and Gilardo’s marriage, it terminated its jurisdiction to order spousal support (June 2021 termination ruling). Martha tried to persuade the court that the June 2021 termination ruling3 presented no obstacle to a spousal support order because, since the court failed to make certain statutorily required findings at that time, it was void and unenforceable. The court was unpersuaded. It explained: “[Martha] argues that the Judgment is void, as this was a marriage of long duration and the Court did not make factual findings per Family Code 4320, 4330, and 4332. The court finds that jurisdiction was permissibly terminated as [Martha] did not request any such findings be made, and Family Code 4336 permits a court order terminating jurisdiction to award spousal support. [Martha] did not timely move to set aside the 7/22/2021 Judgment. [Martha’s] request for permanent spousal support is denied as the Court’s jurisdiction to make such an order as previously terminated.”4 Now on appeal, Martha relies on a new argument—that the June 2021 termination ruling is void because, under the circumstances of her case, the court was required under Family Code section 4336 (section 4336), subdivision (a) to maintain jurisdiction indefinitely to order spousal support. In his responding brief, Gilardo argues we “should dismiss Martha’s appeal because her challenge to the default judgment does not relate to whether it is void, but merely goes to whether the trial court made a legal error in arriving at the judgment.” Gilardo overreaches in requesting dismissal of the appeal; we see no appealability issue, since Martha timely appealed from a post-