In Re Marriage of Liss

California Court of Appeal Nov 10, 1992 No. B056133Published

Before: Jackson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In a non-default marital dissolution proceeding, a trial court has the discretion to retain jurisdiction over spousal support for a party who failed to request it in their initial pleadings, provided the court expressly reserved jurisdiction over the issue.

Issues

Whether a trial court lacks jurisdiction to retain spousal support for a party who failed to request it in their initial response.
Whether the rule in In re Marriage of Lippel regarding default judgments applies to a non-default dissolution proceeding.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The instant case does not involve a default. Both parties were represented and involved in preparation of the November 1, 1989, dissolution judgment and in the October 1, 1990, trial of the reserved issues.”

“Unlike a default case, a trial court has wide discretion in a nondefault matter to permit parties to amend their pleadings in furtherance of justice or to conform to proof.”

“Having expressly reserved jurisdiction, the court retained jurisdiction to permit Husband to amend his pleading in furtherance of justice.”

10 Cal.App.4th 1426 (1992) 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 397 In re the Marriage of SHANNAN AVIS and STEVE SHALOM LISS.

SHANNAN AVIS LISS, Appellant,

STEVE SHALOM LISS, Respondent.

Docket No. B056133. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

November 10, 1992. [1427] COUNSEL

Capretz & Kazdan and Andrew D. Weiss for Appellant.

Bernard Grossman for Respondent.

[1428] OPINION

JACKSON, J.[*]

In this marital dissolution action, appellant Shannan Avis Liss (Wife) appeals from the trial court's further judgment on reserved issues. She contends the court improperly retained jurisdiction to award spousal support to respondent Steve Shalom Liss (Husband). Finding no merit to this argument, we affirm.

Wife's petition for dissolution of marriage and Husband's response were filed on Judicial Council official forms. In Wife's petition, by checking the appropriate boxes, Wife requested that spousal support be awarded to her. In his response, by leaving the boxes blank, Husband failed to request that spousal support be awarded to him. On November 1, 1989, the court filed judgment dissolving the marriage. Pursuant to the parties' marital settlement agreement and stipulations the court at that time decided certain property and other issues. That judgment expressly "reserve[d] jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support" and other issues.

Trial of the reserved issues came on for hearing October 1, 1990. In his trial brief, Husband urged that despite a marriage of over 13 years, the court should not award spousal support nor retain jurisdiction to do so. Husband's argument was that both parties were employed during the marriage, and indeed that Wife's employment history was more stable than Husband's.

In Re Marriage of Liss

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief