Reported / Citable
Background
Katia and James Jenkins separated in October 2020 after more than 22 years of marriage. In January 2021, Katia filed a dissolution petition using the Judicial Council form, listing both separate and community property as “to be determined.” James was personally served at the Mariposa Lane address in Orinda but did not file an answer. Katia later retained counsel, took James’s default in October 2021, and filed property declarations identifying the Walnut Creek marital home, vehicles, restricted stock units, employee stock purchase plan interests, and unspecified retirement accounts.
The default judgment ultimately entered in 2022 made specific property awards based on the property declarations attached to the request for default, including dividing the equity in the marital home and apportioning various other assets. James later moved to set aside the judgment under Family Code sections 2121 and 2122, claiming that he had not received notice of the proceedings on the property division terms and that he had not been mailed the request for default at his actual address.
The trial court granted the set-aside motion. Katia appealed, arguing that the property declarations cured any defect in the petition, that James had received adequate notice, and that the trial court erred by not issuing a statement of decision.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal, Division Four, affirmed. On the central published issue, the court held that the default judgment exceeded the relief Katia had requested in her petition and was therefore subject to vacatur under Code of Civil Procedure section 580. Section 580 prohibits a court from granting relief in a default judgment that exceeds what was demanded in the complaint. In family law, a defendant who defaults can rely on the petition to define the outer bounds of the judgment that may be entered. When a petition lists assets only as “to be determined,” the petitioner cannot use later property declarations attached to the request for default to expand the relief beyond what was originally pleaded.
The court rejected Katia’s argument that the mandatory financial disclosures cured the defect. The disclosures serve a different purpose, ensuring transparency between the parties about assets and debts, and are not a substitute for the petition’s notice function under section 580. A defaulting spouse should be able to make an informed decision about whether to default by reading the petition itself, not by tracking down attachments to a later default request.
The court alternatively affirmed the set-aside under Family Code sections 2121 and 2122 on grounds of mistake. James lacked actual or constructive notice of the financial jeopardy he faced because he had moved from the Mariposa Lane address and was not properly served at his current address with the request for default and accompanying property declarations. The trial court’s implicit findings of mistake were supported by substantial evidence and there was no requirement to enter a separate statement of decision when the legal issues were resolved on the face of the record. The court remanded with directions for Katia to amend her petition to identify all assets in accordance with the FL-100 form, after which James will be permitted to file an answer.
Key Takeaways
- A default judgment in a dissolution case cannot exceed the relief actually requested in the petition; vague placeholders like “to be determined” do not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 580’s notice requirement.
- Mandatory financial disclosures and property declarations attached to a request for entry of default do not cure section 580 defects in the underlying petition.
- A defaulting spouse who lacked notice of the financial terms being sought may obtain relief from a default judgment under Family Code sections 2121 and 2122 on grounds of mistake.
- Petitioners must amend their petitions to identify all assets and proposed dispositions before taking a default that includes property division terms.
- Statements of decision are not always required in set-aside proceedings; appellate courts will consider implicit findings supported by the record.
Why It Matters
This is a significant decision for family law practice, particularly for petitioners using standard Judicial Council forms in dissolution actions. Lawyers and self-represented petitioners cannot rely on later disclosures to identify the assets and debts they want divided in a default judgment. The petition must itself contain enough specificity to put the responding spouse on notice of what is at stake.
For respondents who have defaulted in dissolution actions, the case provides a roadmap for seeking relief when the resulting judgment exceeded the relief specifically pleaded or where notice of the actual relief sought was lacking. Practitioners should review default judgments entered against their clients in dissolution cases to identify potential section 580 and section 2121/2122 grounds for set-aside.