Marriage of Meccia CA2/5

Filed 5/22/15 Marriage of Meccia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re Marriage of CAMILLA and FRANK B256388 MECCIA. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. ED017554)

CAMILLA M. MECCIA,

Appellant,

v.

FRANK A. MECCIA,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dianna Gould-Saltman, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of M.C. Bruce and M.C. Bruce for Appellant. Law Offices of Paul Taylor Smith and Paul Taylor Smith for Respondent. ____________________

On June 5, 2000, the family law court filed an intended decision in the marital dissolution proceeding involving petitioner Camilla M. Meccia (wife) and respondent Frank A. Meccia (husband). Division of community property was ordered. The court reserved jurisdiction over spousal support. Counsel for wife was ordered to prepare, serve, and file a judgment within 10 days of receipt of the notice of intended decision, but did not do so. Almost 14 years passed without entry of a judgment. On January 24, 2014, the following events took place. Husband filed a judgment of dissolution. Counsel for both husband and wife signed the judgment with the notation, “approved as to form and content.” The family law court signed the judgment. Notice of entry of judgment was filed and served on counsel for both parties. On February 10, 2014, wife filed a notice of intention of a motion to vacate the judgment.1 On February 20, 2014, wife filed a motion to vacate the January 24, 2014 judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663.2 The motion was supported by various declarations, letters, and other documents. According to the Los Angeles Superior Court case summary included in the record on appeal, on February 26, 2014, wife filed a “First Amended Notice Of Motion & Motion For Relief From Judgment.” This document is not included in the record on appeal designated by wife. On March 10, 2014, husband filed a combined motion in opposition to the motion to vacate and motion for relief from default under section 473. No motion for relief under section 473 is included in the appellate record. A hearing was held on March 24, 2014. Wife’s motion to vacate the judgment was denied.