In re Marriage of Eustice

23 Citing cases

  1. Heurlin v. Heurlin (In re Marriage of Heurlin)

    G057724 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 23, 2020)

    All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated. Section 580, subdivision (a) provides: "The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . ." "'"[T]he primary purpose of the section is to guarantee defaulting parties adequate notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed against them."'" (In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1302 (Eustice).) "The limitation on default judgments under section 580 applies to marital dissolution proceedings.

  2. Kwon v. Byung Seon Park (In re Marriage of Kwon)

    No. G057226 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    (Burtnett v. King (1949) 33 Cal.2d 805, 807 [trial court erred by awarding community property to the wife in default judgment where the pleadings never asked the court to determine the ownership of that property]; Biscaro v. Stern (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 [trial court erred by awarding condominium to the wife as her separate property in default judgment because the condominium was not identified as marital property in the wife's petition]; In re Marriage of Andresen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 873, 879-880 [identifying assets and liability in property declaration attached to the wife's petition was sufficient to provide due process notice to the husband; trial court properly valued and divided property after the husband defaulted].) The trial court in In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291 appeared not to follow this rule by including assets not mentioned in the wife's petition when it entered default judgment. The procedural history of that case explains why the case is different.

  3. Mello v. Moore (In re Marriage of Moore)

    No. F075446 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2019)

    Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a), provides in part: "The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint ...." "'"[T]he primary purpose of the section is to guarantee defaulting parties adequate notice of the maximum judgment that may be assessed against them."'" (In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1302 (Eustice).) "A defendant has the right to elect not to answer the complaint.

  4. In re Marriage of Silveira

    No. F081213 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2022)

    [Citations.] California satisfies these due process requirements in default cases through section 580.'" (In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1302 (Eustice).) Section 580 reads, in relevant part:

  5. Mould v. Mould (In re Marriage of Mould)

    No. C085068 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2020)

    In support of her procedural due process argument, Susanna cites In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291 (Eustice), In re Marriage of Adkins (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 68 (Adkins), and Smith v. Superior Court (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Smith). None of these cases supports her assertion of a denial of procedural due process.

  6. Sass v. Cohen

    32 Cal.App.5th 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that "the amounts of damages awarded and demanded are to be compared on an aggregate basis"

    In the third instance, the amount of relief sought in a default judgment has no cap, at least for those types of relief for which the statutorily mandated form does not allow an amount to be pled. ( Lippel , supra , 51 Cal.3d at pp. 1169-1170, 276 Cal.Rptr. 290, 801 P.2d 1041 [form complaint]; In re Marriage of Andresen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 873, 879, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 147 [same]; In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1304-1307, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 [preliminary declarations]; cf. In re Marriage of Kahn (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1116-1119, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 [when checking "Other" box on form complaint, amount of relief sought can be alleged and thus must be alleged].

  7. Rodriguez v. Brill (In re Brill)

    Case No. 14-13358-B-7 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016)

    The California Family Code has superseded the Family Law Act without substantive change." In re Marriage of Eustice, 242 Cal.App.4th 1291 (Cal.App. 4th Dist. 2015). In Marvin the California Supreme Court summarized the state of the law and concluded that the right of unmarried co-habitants to enforce express and implied contracts was not impaired by reason of their cohabitation.

  8. PIH Health Hosp.-Whittier v. Cigna Healthcare of Cal.

    No. B323726 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2023)

    Contrary to Cigna's suggestion, the operative complaint in the prior action is the original complaint and not the proposed FAC, which was never ruled on by the court, accepted for filing, or admitted for use at the demurrer hearing as a matter of proof. (See In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1302, fn. 3 [appellate courts will not judicially notice evidence not properly before the trial court].)

  9. Eghbali v. Jacobi

    No. B303827 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2021)

    Accordingly, reversal or modification of a default judgment may be obtained when a complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought, the damages awarded exceed the amount or type demanded in the complaint, or the 6 damages awarded are purely speculative. (E.g., Becker v. S.P.V. Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493-494 [modifying default judgment that awarded plaintiff damages exceeding amount set forth in operative complaint]; In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1303 [noting that if"' "no specific amount of damages is demanded, there is no adequate notice to the defendant-and a default judgment entered under those conditions is void"' "]; Scognamillo v. Herrick (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151 [reversing default judgment to the extent it awarded compensatory damages and lost wages relating to a future surgery where the need for that surgery was entirely speculative].) Although Jacobi attempts to characterize his arguments on appeal as relating to "excessive damages," for the most part, they do not.

  10. Am. Express Bank FSB v. Singh

    No. E074042 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2020)

    "The trial court has broad discretion to impose sanctions for violations of court orders . . . subject to reversal only for arbitrary or capricious action." (In re Marriage of Eustice (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1309.) It is conceivable that the trial court considered sanctioning Abdeljawad for forging the signature of his client on the substitution of counsel by holding him in civil contempt pursuant to section 1218, subdivision (a).