Marriage of Cruz and Montano CA6

Filed 4/7/21 Marriage of Cruz and Montano CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of CAROL CRUZ and H045398 ARSENIO RICHARD MONTANO. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 2008-1-FL-145239) CAROL CRUZ,

Appellant,

v.

ARSENIO RICHARD MONTANO,

Respondent.

Appellant Carol Cruz signed a stipulated order to resolve the dissolution of her marriage to respondent Arsenio Richard Montano. Among other things, the parties agreed that in return for Montano assuming all community debt, Cruz would give up her community interest in Montano’s labor union retirement accounts. Cruz later sought to void that order, alleging Montano had withheld information about the union retirement accounts. The trial court denied Cruz’s motion after a hearing and entered judgment based on the stipulated order. Cruz appealed from that judgment in a different case, but abandoned that appeal. Cruz later unsuccessfully moved to set aside the judgment in the trial court. Cruz appeals from the order denying her motion to set aside the judgment, but her appellate briefing improperly attempts to attack the judgment directly and makes no argument about that postjudgment order. For the reasons stated here, we will affirm the order denying Cruz’s motion to set aside the judgment.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS According to Cruz’s opening brief, Cruz and Montano married in 1991. Cruz petitioned for dissolution in 2008. Cruz (then represented by counsel) sent Montano a proposed stipulated judgment in 2015. The proposal, signed by Cruz, lists four types of community retirement assets Montano possessed that a neutral expert would be hired to separate between the parties: a military pension; a “401(a) Plan”; an “LU 393 Pension, Part A”; and an “LU 393 Pension, Part B.” That stipulated judgment was never signed by Montano. A form stipulation and order (“settlement agreement”) was signed by the parties and the trial court in February 2017. (Cruz was no longer represented by counsel when she signed the agreement.) The parties agreed that Montano’s military pension would be shared equally. Montano agreed to assume “all community property debt,” and in return Montano would be “awarded his Retirement/Pension/401(k) accounts with UA Local 393 as his sole and separate property, without offset, and shall utilize funds in this account to pay off community property debts and liabilities.” The parties appeared at a hearing in September 2017 to discuss what the trial court described as Cruz’s “motion to void the settlement agreement.” Cruz (still unrepresented) contended that when she signed the settlement agreement she was not aware that the UA Local 393 union pension had two components (both a traditional defined benefit pension and a defined contribution pension). Montano’s counsel argued that Cruz had notice of all union pension components, citing the proposed stipulated judgment Cruz sent to Montano in 2015 that referenced both components. The trial court denied Cruz’s motion to void the settlement agreement, finding “enough evidence before this Court that over the course of this litigation it was disclosed to you and your counsel” that Montano’s union pension included both components. The court signed the judgment