In Re Marriage of Borges

California Court of Appeal Aug 14, 1978 No. 41464Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to modify a marital dissolution judgment because the appellant abandoned the remedy of enforcing the existing judgment in favor of an unsupported request for modification.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to modify a marital dissolution judgment to include retirement benefits as community property.
Whether the 'undisclosed assets' provision of the marital settlement agreement provided a basis for the requested modification.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No lawful basis for modification of the judgment was shown, and it was not error to deny such relief.”

“Verna originally chose an available remedy in seeking enforcement of the judgment but at the hearing before the trial court counsel did not pursue that remedy”

83 Cal.App.3d 771 (1978) 148 Cal. Rptr. 118 In re the Marriage of VERNA C. and NELSON W. BORGES.

NELSON W. BORGES, Respondent,

JACQUELINE ROBINSON, as Special Administratrix, etc., Appellant.

Docket No. 41464. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.

August 14, 1978. [773] COUNSEL

Boornazian, King & Schultze and James L. McIntosh for Appellant.

Goth, Dennis & Aaron and Peter G. Riechert for Respondent.

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

Jacqueline Robinson, special administratrix of the estate of Verna C. Borges, deceased, appeals[1] from an order denying modification of an interlocutory judgment of marital dissolution.

The marriage of Nelson W. Borges and Verna C. Borges was terminated on January 3, 1975, by an interlocutory judgment which awarded to Verna $250 per month alimony. Integrated into the judgment was a marital settlement agreement which identified and divided several items of community property. Verna gave to Nelson a promissory note in the amount of $21,858 to balance the division of community property.

Almost two years later, Verna retained new counsel and obtained from the court an order directing Nelson to show cause why he should not be compelled, under terms of the agreement, to pay to Verna half the value, as of the time of the dissolution, of benefits which Nelson would upon his retirement receive from his employer, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company.

At hearings on the order to show cause the evidence established without contradiction that both parties had been aware that Nelson's [774]

In Re Marriage of Borges

AI Brief

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief