CourtListener opinion 2752803

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

Filed 11/18/14 Marriage of Santillan CA4/1
 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

 COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 DIVISION ONE

 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of MARIA CARMEN
and JULIO CESAR SANTILLAN.
 D064022
MARIA CARMEN SANTILLAN,

 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. EFL14212)

 v.

JULIO CESAR SANTILLAN,

 Appellant.

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr.,

Judge. Affirmed.

 J. Manuel Sanchez & Associates and J. Manuel Sanchez for Appellant.

 Marcus Family Law Center, Erin K. Tomlinson, Moriel Cohen, Ethan J. Marcus

and Case Y. Kamshad for Respondent.
 INTRODUCTION

 Husband appeals from a court order denying his request to set aside a default and

default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).1 He

contends we must reverse the order because the default and default judgment were the

result of surprise and excusable neglect. We conclude husband has forfeited these

contentions by failing to seek relief on these grounds below. Even if he had not forfeited

these contentions, we affirm the order as he failed to establish the requisite surprise and

excusable neglect.

 BACKGROUND

 On December 27, 2012, wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to

husband. The two had been married almost 31 years. On the same day, wife also

obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order against husband. The order

included provisions giving her control of their home and requiring him to move out of it

immediately. At a hearing on January 11, 2013, in which husband represented himself,

the court granted wife a protective order effective for five years. Like the temporary

restraining order, the protective order gave her control of their home and required him to

move out of it immediately. At the same hearing, husband was served with wife's

dissolution petition.

1 Further statutory references are also to the Code of Civil Procedure unless
otherwise stated.

 2
 On February 20, 2013, wife requested entry of husband's default. On the same

day, she filed an income and expense declaration stating she had gross monthly income

of $2,168.17 and estimated monthly expenses of $2,384.98 plus monthly credit card

payments of $345. She estimated husband had a monthly income of $620. The court

entered default as requested on February 22, 2013.

 On February 25, 2013, the court entered a judgment of dissolution. In the

judgment, the court reserved spousal support for future determination and made wife

responsible for approximately $12,000 in credit card debts. The court divided the marital

property by awarding wife their home, the furnishings in it, two cars, 100 percent of the

community interest in her retirement plan, approximately $60,000 from his 401k plan,

and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan. The court awarded

husband three cars, a flatbed trailer, a motor home, tools, approximately $80,000 from his

401k plan, and 50 percent of the community interest in his retirement plan.

 On March 22, 2013, husband, now represented by counsel, filed a request for an

order setting aside the default and default judgment under section 473, subdivision (b).2

In his supporting memorandum of points and authorities, husband asserted the grounds

for setting aside the default and default judgment were extrinsic fraud and lack of actual

notice of the divorce proceedings. In his supporting declaration, he stated he and wife

verbally agreed, on December 16, 2012, to hire an attorney to represent them both and to

2 Husband also requested spousal support, which the court later denied. We do not
address the propriety of the spousal support order because husband's opening brief does
not raise any specific challenges to it.

 3
 file for a stipulated divorce. They also agreed to divide all of the community assets

equally and to reserve the issue of spousal support. He was subsequently shocked when a

sheriff's officer served him with a restraining order and evicted him from their home on

January 2, 2013. He was homeless for three days afterwards until he moved in with his

sister. He was also penniless because wife had deposited his monthly retirement check

into her credit union account and then withdrew the entire amount.3 He has diabetes and

the situation affected his health as well as caused him to suffer from depression. He did

not understand the pleadings served on him because his first language is Spanish and he

was too affected by the restraining order and eviction to focus on anything else.

 Wife opposed the request for relief. In her supporting declaration, she stated

husband speaks English and the summons with which he was served was translated into

Spanish. She did not feel comfortable hiring a joint attorney because she did not trust

husband, in part because of the domestic violence she endured throughout their marriage.

The judgment divided their community property evenly. She deposited his retirement

check into her account because, at that point, the court's judgment entitled her to half of it

and he had not yet cooperated with her to get a qualified domestic relations order issued

to separate their interests. Husband's health problems have been long-standing.

3 The documents husband provided to support this statement showed the deposit and
withdrawal occurred in March 2013.

 4
 The court denied husband's request for relief, finding no basis to set aside the

default and default judgment. Husband sought reconsideration of the court's decision and

the court reaffirmed it.

 DISCUSSION

 Husband contends the court should have granted his request to set aside the default

and default judgment because they were the result of surprise and excusable neglect.

Husband has forfeited these contentions because he did not seek relief on either ground

below. (Greenwich S.F., LLC v. Wong (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 739, 767.) Instead, he

sought relief on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of actual notice. Even if husband

had not forfeited these contentions, we are not persuaded the court erred in denying him

relief.

 Under section 473, subdivision (b), a court has the discretion, \upon any terms as