{"id":6,"date":"2026-05-01T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=6"},"modified":"2026-05-01T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T12:00:00","slug":"marriage-of-nishida-kamoda-fraud-set-aside-post-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=6","title":{"rendered":"Marriage of Nishida & Kamoda \u2014 Court of Appeal Revives Wife’s Fraud Suit Over Post-Divorce Property Stipulation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
In re Marriage of Nishida & Kamoda<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-05-01<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
G064200<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Family Code section 2122 set-aside, post-judgment community property division, jurisdiction transfer, leave to amend<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Mizuki Nishida and Masashi Kamoda were divorced by a 2018 judgment of dissolution. About a month after the judgment, they signed a stipulation dividing a remaining community asset that the dissolution judgment had not addressed.<\/p>\n

In January 2020, Nishida filed a separate civil lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court alleging that Kamoda had fraudulently induced her to sign the post-judgment stipulation. Because the underlying dispute involved former spouses and community property, the civil court transferred the lawsuit to the family law division of the same superior court.<\/p>\n

Once in family law, the case was dismissed as untimely under Family Code section 2122, which sets the time limits for set-aside motions following dissolution. The family court also denied Nishida’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to fit a section 2122 framework. Earlier, the civil court had granted Kamoda’s motion for relief from default. Nishida appealed all three orders.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fourth District, Division Three, reversed in part and affirmed in part. On the central issue, the court held the family law court erred in dismissing Nishida’s lawsuit as untimely under section 2122. Although Nishida probably should have filed a set-aside motion<\/em> rather than a new civil complaint<\/em>, her civil filing was timely under section 2122 when measured from the proper date and gave Kamoda full notice of her fraud and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. The transfer from the civil court to the family law court resolved any jurisdictional issues \u2014 once the case was sitting in the right division, the form of the original pleading should not have been dispositive.<\/p>\n

The court further held the family court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. California’s policy strongly favors granting leave to amend, and Nishida explicitly sought to recast her complaint to seek the remedies available under the Family Code. There was no good reason to refuse that request.<\/p>\n

The court affirmed the civil court’s earlier order granting Kamoda relief from default \u2014 that ruling was within the civil court’s discretion and not affected by the broader procedural confusion.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n