Valencia v. Valencia CA2/3

Filed 7/17/23 Valencia v. Valencia CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

MARTHA DIAZ VALENCIA, B320164

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD632673 v.

MANUEL VALENCIA, JR.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rolf M. Treu, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

The Law Offices of Kurt Bier and Kurt Bier for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________

Martha Diaz Valencia (Diaz) filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Manuel Valencia, Jr. (Valencia), but she did not identify any community property for the court to divide. Five years after the court entered judgment of dissolution, Diaz petitioned the court to divide three properties in which she claimed a community property interest. The court refused to do so on the basis that Diaz had failed to identify the properties in her petition for dissolution. On appeal, Diaz argues the court is required under Family Code section 2556 to adjudicate the properties. We agree and reverse the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2016, Diaz filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Valencia. In a section of the petition related to community and quasi-community property, Diaz checked a box stating: “There are no such assets or debts that I know of to be divided by the court.” Valencia did not respond to the petition, and the court entered default judgment of dissolution in May 2016. The judgment states there are no property “assets or debts subject to disposition by the court in this proceeding.” Just over five years later, in July 2021, Diaz filed a petition asking the court to divide three properties: 1242 E. 35th Street, 1917 E. 114th Street, and 1525 Starz Street. In a declaration attached to the petition, Diaz said that, although the dissolution judgment states there are no community assets or debts, “[t]his is not true. The Respondent, Mr. Valencia, and I purchased three properties while married, none of which were divided by the judgment.” According to Diaz, she did not include the three properties in the dissolution petition because “Valencia demanded that I not