Marriage of Badea-Mic and Detres CA3

Filed 11/23/20 Marriage of Badea-Mic and Detres CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of MIHAELA C. BADEA-MIC C085459 and AUGUSTIN D. DETRES.

MIHAELA C. BADEA-MIC, (Super. Ct. No. 12FL04959)

Appellant,

v.

AUGUSTIN D. DETRES,

Respondent.

In this appeal, appellant Mihaela C. Badea-Mic (Badea-Mic) challenges an order of the family law court giving respondent, her ex-husband Augustin D. Detres (Detres), authority to sell the marital home. Badea-Mic does not dispute that the court had

1

discretion to authorize the sale, but contends she was denied due process when the court failed to hold a hearing to allow her to contest the agreed price and other terms of sale. Detres argues that the intervening sale of the home to a third party renders this appeal moot. We agree, and therefore dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Badea-Mic and Detres were married for approximately a year and a half when they separated. While married, they purchased a home in Fair Oaks, California (the Property), which was secured by a mortgage (deed of trust) in Detres’s name alone. In December 2011, Badea-Mic and Detres separated. In July 2012, just before filing for divorce, Detres executed a quitclaim deed transferring his interest in the Property to Badea-Mic. In August 2012, Badea-Mic and Detres filed a “Joint Petition for Summary Dissolution” of their marriage under Family Code section 2400 et seq.1 Section 2400 establishes a simple procedure for a couple to obtain a divorce, but the procedure is only available to couples who meet certain conditions, one of which is that neither party has any interest in real property. (§ 2400, subd. (a)(5).) When Badea-Mic and Detres filed their joint petition, they both stated under oath that they did not own any real property and had no community assets or liabilities. Based on their petition, the family court entered a judgment of dissolution on March 25, 2013. Section 2556 provides that a party to a dissolution proceeding may file a postjudgment motion to obtain adjudication of any community asset or liability omitted or not adjudicated by the judgment in the proceeding.2 (§ 2556; see also In re Marriage