Dale v. Dale

15 Citing cases

  1. Walstad v. Walstad

    2012 N.D. 204 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Discussing the nature of the separate statutory remedy

    We also recognize different limitations apply to each of the three available sources of relief. Motions are permitted under N.D.C.C. § 14–05–24(3) and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, although a motion under the statute is not limited by the time constraints in N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. An independent action in equity against the non-disclosing former spouse is available under Hamilton. [¶ 14] Catherine Walstad's reliance on In re Marriage of Rossi, 90 Cal.App.4th 34, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 270 (2001); Dale v. Dale, 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 513 (1998); and Burris v. Burris, 904 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.Ct.App.1995), to support her claim for punitive damages is misplaced. [¶ 15] In Rossi, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d at 272, 275–77, the California Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's post-judgment order to set aside a property distribution after a former wife failed to disclose community property lottery winnings and the trial court awarded the entire lottery proceeds to the former husband under Cal. Fam.Code § 1101(h).

  2. Rubenstein v. Rubenstein

    81 Cal.App.4th 1131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 266 times
    Rejecting res judicata defense to motion to modify

    '" [Citations.]" ( Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1183, italics deleted.) Thus, a spouse who conceals the existence of community assets, thereby depriving the other spouse of the opportunity fully to present his or her case in a dissolution proceeding, cannot claim the judgment of dissolution is final and conclusive.

  3. Jones v. Hilliker

    E056953 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2014)

    Regardless of the outcome of that argument, however, it is clear that the Riverside court has no jurisdiction to entertain Jones's tort claims. Jones relies upon Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172 (Dale) to assert that instead of seeking relief in the family law court, she may seek damages in tort for fraudulent concealment of community assets. In Dale, at page 1183, the court held that where "the dissolution proceeding ha[d] been finally disposed of by means of a final judgment," a person may sue a former spouse in civil court for tortious concealment of community property.

  4. Burkle v. Burkle

    144 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 86 times
    Affirming award of sanctions against represented party and her attorney when trial court based its decision not only on subdivision (b), but also subdivision (b)

    ( Id. at p. 421.) See Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1175 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 513] ("in the absence of a pending dissolution proceeding, a plaintiff who contends she suffered injury because her former spouse tortiously concealed community assets from her, thereby preventing her from fully presenting her case in the dissolution proceeding, is entitled to bring a subsequent tort action based on the alleged concealment"); contra Kuehn v. Kuehn (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 824, 834 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 743] (no tort remedy for concealment of community assets in a dissolution proceeding; "the Dale decision clearly was a major departure from existing law and its remedy has not been followed by any California court"). — In Neal and d'Elia, the separate civil actions were improper even though they were filed after final judgments in the family law proceedings had been entered, rather than during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding.

  5. In re Marriage of Carter

    No. D080210 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 2024)

    "Family Code section 2120 et seq. provides a comprehensive statutory scheme for setting aside such judgments on grounds of actual fraud, perjury, duress, mental incapacity, or mistake." (Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1179 fn. 5; § 2122 [grounds and time limits for set aside].) The "trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing to set aside a judgment under section 2122 is subject to reversal on appeal only if we find an abuse of that discretion."

  6. (In re Marriage of Knight)

    No. D080680 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2023)

    "[W]hen a dissolution proceeding is pending in the family court, another department of the superior court may not act so as to interfere with the family court's exercise of its powers in that proceeding." (Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1183; see also Glade, at p. 1454 [where a" 'family law court acquires jurisdiction to divide community property in a dissolution action, no other department of a superior court may make an order adversely affecting that division' "].)

  7. Shami v. Shami

    No. B319824 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2022)

    (Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1183.) In Askew, for example, the Court of Appeal held that the court in a civil action lacked jurisdiction to impose constructive trusts on properties when the family law court in an earlier-filed dissolution action had yet to characterize the properties as community or separate.

  8. Drink Tank Ventures LLC v. Real Soda in Real Bottles, Ltd.

    71 Cal.App.5th 528 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 25 times

    ntertain them—can arise (1) from statutes enacted by legislative bodies (such as our Legislature or Congress), except where that authority has been curtailed by the Supremacy Clauses of the federal or California Constitutions (e.g., DeTomaso v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 517, 520, fn. 1, 235 Cal.Rptr. 292, 733 P.2d 614 ["[w]hether or not tort claims are preempted by [federal Railway Labor Act] is a question of subject matter jurisdiction"]; El Rancho Unified School Dist. v. National Education Assn. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 946, 961, 192 Cal.Rptr. 123, 663 P.2d 893 [federal statute divests trial courts of subject matter jurisdiction over lawsuit for damages]) or (2) from judges exercising their inherent, common law authority to fashion remedies, except where that authority has been curtailed by statutory or constitutional law ( Olcese v. Justice's Court (1909) 156 Cal. 82, 85, 103 P. 317 [trial courts are the "courts with the fullest common law and equity jurisdiction"]; Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1177-1178, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 513 ["The superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tort action ..."]; Cory v. Shierloh (1981) 29 Cal.3d 430, 439, 174 Cal.Rptr. 500, 629 P.2d 8 ["the Legislature possesses a broad authority both to establish and to abolish tort causes of action"], superseded on other grounds by Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25602.1.) Where a party purports to bring a statute-based cause of action that does not satisfy its statutory prerequisites, a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

  9. Chopra v. Chopra (In re Marriage of Chopra)

    No. A160727 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2021)

    “Thus, a spouse who conceals the existence of community assets, thereby depriving the other spouse of the opportunity fully to present his or her case in a dissolution proceeding, cannot claim that the judgment of dissolution bars a subsequent tort action based on that failure.” (Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1183.) The section 2122 exceptions to res judicata reflect the idea “that concealment and nondisclosure of community property by a husband at the time of divorce proceedings is a violation of his fiduciary duties as manager of the community assets, and that such a violation is the type of extrinsic fraud which warrants equitable relief against a judgment based at least in part upon such fraud.”

  10. Herterich v. Peltner

    20 Cal.App.5th 1132 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 20 times
    Explaining that the California Supreme Court "had 'showed no hesitation' in applying the privilege to intentionally false testimony made in a judicial proceeding"

    For purposes of this appeal, we will assume that plaintiff's allegations in the complaint are true. He also relies on a case that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds before the motion for summary judgment was decided (Dale v. Dale (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1176–1177, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 513 ). That procedural circumstance is not present in this case.