The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a)The State of California has a strong policy of ensuring the division of community and quasi-community property in the dissolution of a marriage as set forth in Division 7 (commencing with Section 2500), and of providing for fair and sufficient child and spousal support awards. These policy goals can only be implemented with full disclosure of community, quasi-community, and separate assets, liabilities, income, and expenses, as provided in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2100), and decisions freely and knowingly made.
(b)It occasionally happens that the division of property or the award of support, whether made as a result of agreement or trial, is inequitable when made due to the nondisclosure or other misconduct of one of the parties.
(c)The public policy of assuring finality of judgments must be balanced against the public interest in ensuring
proper division of marital property, in ensuring sufficient support awards, and in deterring misconduct.
(d)The law governing the circumstances under which a judgment can be set aside, after the time for relief under Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure has passed, has been the subject of considerable confusion which has led to increased litigation and unpredictable and inconsistent decisions at the trial and appellate levels.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case:
Eben-King v. King, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3196 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
Eben-King v. King, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3196 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “In support, she cites broad language in Family Code sections 2120 and 2121 setting forth legislative declarations of public policy favoring “decisions freely and knowingly made” in all dissolution proceedings and “full disclosure of community, quasi-community, and separate…”
In Re Marriage of Kieturakis, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “) Family Code section 2120 et seq., reflect a balancing of the “public policy of assuring finality of judgments” and “the public interest in ensuring proper division of marital property.”
Rubenstein v. Rubenstein, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5364 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“Dale itself observed, “[f]or judgments entered on or after January 1, 1993, 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.”
In Re Marriage of Varner, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
“On January 13, 1994, within six months of entry of the judgment, wife filed a motion to set aside the stipulation for judgment and the judgment on three grounds: first, Code of Civil Procedure section 473; second, the inherent equitable power of the court to set aside judgments…”
In Re Marriage of Hobdy, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
“) The interplay between relief under section 473 and the availability of similar remedies under the Family Code is set out in Family Code section 2120 et seq.”
Walstad v. Walstad, 821 N.W.2d 770 (N.D. 2012).
“The initial divorce judgment in Dale was entered in 1988, and the court of appeals explicitly did not address the effect of Cal. Fam.Code § 2120 et seq. on the viability of a tort action for concealment of assets.”
Dale v. Dale, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“) For judgments entered on or after January 1, 1993, 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.”
Zarubin v. Miotke (In re Miotke), 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
“" (Fam. Code, § 2120, subd. (b).) "The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable…”
Marriage of Sommers CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 9× “II Gloria also contends the trial court erred in concluding that her motion, under Family Code section 2120 et seq., to set aside portions of the judgment on reserved issues is barred under section 366.”
Marriage of Jenkins (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “(Fam. Code, § 2120, subd. (d); id., § 2123; see Hogoboom & King, Cal.”
Marriage of Miotke (Cal. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “In her initial pleadings, Natalia cited Family Code section 2120, subdivision (b),9 Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b),10 and Family Code section 3691,11 arguing the court should set aside the PMA because it was “unconscionable and inequitable.”
Marriage of Morgan CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “5, Family Code section 2120 et seq., and equitable principles.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.