Marriage of Lira
In February 2004, in connection with the dissolution of their marriage, Teodula Lira and Joaquin Lira entered into a stipulated judgment in part dividing several parcels of real property. That judgment was incorporated into their final judgment of dissolution. Over four years later, Teodula obtained postjudgment orders (1) finding one of the parcels of property (the subject property) to be an "omitted asset" and ordering Joaquin to pay her one-half the property's value and (2) awarding her and their son, Jerry Lira, attorney fees. Joaquin appeals, contending (1) there was no partially omitted asset within the meaning of Family Code[1] section 2556; (2) Teodula did not meet her burden of proving undue influence for purposes of applying section 2122; (3) the statute of limitations had run on the time for Teodula to file a motion for relief from a judgment; and (4) the family court exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in ordering Joaquin to pay attorney fees to Teodula and Jerry's attorneys. Teodula raises a host of procedural objections to Joaquin's ability to now challenge these matters on appeal.
Court reject Teodula's procedural objections, and conclude the family court erred as a matter of law in ruling the subject property an omitted asset. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the postjudgment order as well as the postjudgment order awarding Teodula and Jerry attorney fees. Court remand the matter for redetermination of Jerry's request for attorney fees against Teodula in connection with his partition cross-complaint.
Comments on Marriage of Lira