Marriage of Nhothsiri and Mingsisouphanh CA5

Filed 5/21/13 Marriage of Nhothsiri and Mingsisouphanh CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of SANOEUN NHOTHSIRI and VIENGKHAM MINGSISOUPHANH.

SANOEUN NHOTHSIRI, F063602

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 425800)

v. OPINION VIENGKHAM MINGSISOUPHANH,

Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Loretta Murphy Begen, Judge. Law Offices of Steven A. Clair and Steven A. Clair for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to set aside a judgment of dissolution of marriage for extrinsic fraud. We affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant Viengkham Mingsisouphanh (appellant) was the respondent in a dissolution of marriage action filed in 2007 by respondent in this appeal, Sanoeun Nhothsiri (respondent). The petition for dissolution alleged the parties were married on January 5, 2000. Appellant filed a response in the dissolution action stating the date of marriage as January 5, 2000. There was a contested dissolution hearing at which appellant and other witnesses testified. The court entered judgment on January 28, 2010, reciting January 5, 2000, as the date of marriage and, apparently, awarding spousal support. In June 2011, appellant was notified by letter that her spousal support would be ending. On June 10, 2011, appellant filed the present motion to set aside the dissolution judgment. In her declaration in support of the motion, she states: “I did not realize that [respondent] had fraudulently provided the incorrect date of marriage. It is my belief that [respondent] knowingly and purposely provided an incorrect date to the Court in order to protect his retirement.” She alleged she and respondent were married in Laos in 1981 in a religious ceremony that did “not require a marriage certificate.” She also alleged: “For legal purposes, we had to obtain a marriage certificate and on January 5, 2000, … we renewed our vows. We were already married when we obtained our marriage certificate.” The matter was submitted on the pleadings. The trial court stated in its order that it had reviewed the court file of the dissolution proceedings and that January 5, 2000, was repeatedly and consistently stated as the date of marriage. “Assuming arguendo that [respondent] was fraudulently claiming January 5, 2000, as the date of marriage, [appellant] had actual knowledge of the claim on September 27, 2007, when she was served with the Summons and Petition.… [Appellant’s] own pleadings list January 5,