{"id":190,"date":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=190"},"modified":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-22T12:00:00","slug":"marriage-of-starr-a172153-judicial-admission-date-separation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=190","title":{"rendered":"Marriage of Starr \u2014 Date-of-Separation Allegation in Amended Petition Was Not a Binding Judicial Admission"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Marriage of Starr<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal, Division Four<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-22<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A172153<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Marriage Dissolution, Date of Separation, Judicial Admissions, Pleadings, Bifurcated Trial<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Tara Starr filed a dissolution petition in 2020. The petition initially alleged a separation date of March 20, 2009, but was amended in 2021 \u2014 by stipulation, with successive new counsel \u2014 to allege a separation date of June 2, 2020. Tara subsequently engaged additional new counsel and, in motion practice and trial briefs, asserted that the actual separation date was October 15, 2012. Both parties’ trial briefs treated the 2012-vs-2020 question as a contested issue. Husband Thomas had asserted September 15, 2020 as his date.<\/p>\n

At the start of a bifurcated trial on the separation-date issue, the trial court raised sua sponte the question whether Tara was bound by the June 2, 2020 allegation in her amended petition. After colloquy in which Thomas’s counsel conceded he had not actually verified Tara’s last pleaded date, the court ultimately ruled that Tara was bound by the June 2020 date and adopted it as the separation date.<\/p>\n

Tara appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that the date-of-separation allegation in Tara’s amended petition was not a binding judicial admission under the circumstances. Judicial admissions arise when a party makes a clear, deliberate factual concession in a pleading; they are not lightly inferred from amendments made through successive counsel, and they do not bind a party where the opposing party has acquiesced in treating the issue as disputed.<\/p>\n

Here, Tara’s later filings, declarations, and trial briefs all asserted a 2012 separation date. Thomas had taken inconsistent positions himself \u2014 initially alleging September 2020, then conceding June 2020 only at the last minute. The parties’ joint case management statement listed the separation date as a contested issue. Under those circumstances, the trial court should not have invoked the amended-petition allegation to foreclose Tara from contesting the separation date at trial.<\/p>\n

The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the separation-date issue, but denied Tara’s request that the case be assigned to a different judge.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n