## Facts

- Wife filed for divorce in California superior court seeking custody, child support, and an order requiring husband to pay a home mortgage and a credit union debt.
- Husband was personally served but did not appear; default was entered.
- An interlocutory divorce decree awarded custody to wife and ordered husband to pay monthly sums to the court trustee: $50 for child support, $54.05 on the mortgage, and $43 to the credit union, stated to be “for the benefit of plaintiff and said minor child.”
- The home had been held in joint tenancy; before divorce, husband quitclaimed his interest so the home became wife’s separate property.
- Within six months after entry of the interlocutory decree, but more than six months after entry of default, husband moved to open, vacate, or modify; the trial court struck the phrase “for the benefit of plaintiff and said minor child” from the decree.
- Wife later moved to restore the stricken language; the trial court restored it and entered a final divorce judgment including the restored provisions.
- Husband appealed from the restoration order and the final judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering husband to make mortgage and credit-union payments to the court trustee “for the benefit of plaintiff and said minor child” was a valid support/maintenance provision or an invalid order compelling payment to nonparty creditors.
2. Whether the trial court had authority to modify the interlocutory default decree by striking the “for the benefit” language based on a post-default motion made outside the statutory time allowed for relief from default.
3. Whether the subsequent restoration order and final judgment were valid given the earlier modification order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed.
- The mortgage and credit-union payment provisions, directed through the court trustee “for the benefit of plaintiff and said minor child,” were valid as support and maintenance and did not constitute judgments for the creditors.
- The order striking the “for the benefit” language was void because the motion was not timely as statutory relief from default and could not be used to correct an alleged legal error by summary motion.
- Because the earlier modification order was void, the trial court properly restored the original language and entered the final judgment consistent with the interlocutory decree.

## Legal Principles

- A divorce court may structure support and maintenance to include payments that retire household-related debts when the decree makes the payments for the spouse’s and child’s benefit and does not purport to render judgment for nonparty creditors.
- Payments routed through a court trustee for the spouse and child are treated as support administration; the trustee acts for the beneficiaries, not as a creditors’ agent.
- Relief from a default judgment under the statutory procedure for setting aside default is subject to strict time limits measured from entry of default; an untimely motion does not confer jurisdiction to modify the judgment.
- A trial court may not use an untimely post-default motion procedure as a substitute for appeal or as a vehicle to correct alleged errors of law; orders entered without statutory authority are void.

## Conclusion

The court upheld trustee-administered mortgage and debt payments as valid support for the wife and child and held that an untimely attempt to modify a default divorce decree exceeded the trial court’s authority, making the modification void and the later restoration and final judgment valid.


Bowman v. Bowman, 29 Cal. 2d 808, 178 P.2d 751 (Cal. 1947)