Marriage of Anton CA5

Filed 9/19/23 Marriage of Anton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 MARILY W. and THOMAS J. ANTON.

MARILY W. ANTON, F085420

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BFL-20-002090)

v. OPINION THOMAS J. ANTON,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Raymonda B. Marquez, Judge. Michael R. Kilpatrick & Associates and Michael R. Kilpatrick for Appellant. McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Jerry D. Casheros and Ella A. Moberg for Respondent. -ooOoo-

In May 2020, Marily Anton filed a petition for legal separation from her husband Thomas Anton.1 She amended her petition to one for dissolution in February 2021. When Thomas failed to respond, Marily sought a default judgment in June 2021. After default was entered, Thomas moved to set it aside. The court declined to grant relief. It ultimately entered judgment dissolving the marriage and dividing the parties’ property. Thomas appeals, claiming the court erred in denying the motion to set aside default and in its property division. We affirm. BACKGROUND Marily, in pro. per., first filed for legal separation from Thomas in May 2020 and later, after retaining counsel, amended the filing to dissolution in February 2021. The amended petition made clear Marily intended the court to assign separate property and divide community property. Thomas never responded. Default and Set Aside Motion After default was sought and entered in June 2021, Thomas moved to set it aside. Thomas argued relief was warranted because he “was recovering from … a chronic heart condition,” “stress[ed],” “drinking heavily and … understandably depressed,” “lost key office staff” at his legal practice “who had been attempting to assist with [a] response,” was “basically homeless,” and was “unable to retain family law counsel.” Thomas testified to much the same at the hearing on the motion. He acknowledged he was aware of the petition for separation, tried working through “marital differences” for “[a]round seven to eight months,” and then was served with the petition for dissolution. He continued to attempt to save his marriage. Meanwhile, his heart problems lingered and “a senior associate who was handling many cases with” him left the practice, “thr[owing] a big monkey wrench into the business.”