Marriage of Herrera and Wiebe CA4/2 (2014) · DecisionDepot
Marriage of Herrera and Wiebe CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 2014 No. E054510Unpublished
Filed 4/29/14 Marriage of Herrera and Wiebe CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re the Marriage of RUBI HERRERA and JASON WIEBE.
RUBI HERRERA, E054510 Appellant, (Super.Ct.No. FAMSS1003428) v. OPINION JASON WIEBE,
Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Tara Reilly, Judge.
Affirmed.
Rubi Herrera, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
Appellant Rubi Herrera initiated this action seeking to nullify her marriage to
respondent Jason Wiebe. A default judgment and permanent restraining order were
entered against Wiebe. He moved, and the trial court granted, his motion to set aside
1
both. Herrera appeals, contending the trial court erred (1) in not allowing her to file
evidence necessary to prove her case, (2) in refusing to instruct opposing counsel
properly, leading to improper rulings and/or orders, (3) in allowing Wiebe to submit
fraudulent documents upon the court, (4) in allowing opposing counsel to submit
improper and incomplete motions to the court, and (5) in granting Wiebe’s motion to set
aside default and subject orders. We reject her contentions and affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in setting aside both Wiebe’s default and the permanent restraining order.
Wiebe’s request to set aside the default was served one month after Herrera requested
entry of default. Clearly, Wiebe did not drag his heels. He claimed that his lack of filing
7
a response was a result of never being served with notice of the action. We, like the trial
court, find his claim to be plausible.
III. DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed. Costs on appeal shall be awarded to Wiebe.
HOLLENHORST J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P.J.
KING J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside a default judgment and a permanent restraining order, finding no abuse of discretion and noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudicial error or provide an adequate record for review.
Issues
Did the trial court err in granting the respondent's motion to set aside the default and permanent restraining order?
Did the trial court commit prejudicial error by continuing the hearing, allegedly preventing the appellant from presenting evidence?
Did the trial court err in its handling of evidence and witness credibility?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“A motion for relief from a default or a default judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.”
“We have reviewed the record and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting aside both Wiebe’s default and the permanent restraining order.”
“To prevail on appeal, an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate not only error but prejudice.”