## Facts

- Husband and Wife married in 1969, separated in 1982, and had one adopted child.
- During the marriage, Husband completed medical training, became an orthopedic surgeon, and developed a private practice; Wife worked as a secretary and later performed administrative work for the practice.
- After separation, Wife initiated but dismissed an early dissolution proceeding; later, the parties signed a handwritten marital settlement agreement drafted by Husband.
- Husband filed a new dissolution action in propria persona and obtained an interlocutory (and later final) judgment incorporating a typed version of the settlement agreement, asserting the community estate had been disposed of by written agreement.
- The agreement’s property division was substantially favorable to Husband; Wife signed the final agreement and waiver while unrepresented and did not appear at the uncontested hearing.
- Wife later moved to set aside the judgment’s property and support provisions, alleging duress and extrinsic fraud or mistake; multiple witnesses, including Wife’s former attorneys and friends, testified about Husband’s controlling negotiation tactics and Wife’s depressed, intimidated, and emotionally fragile condition at signing.
- The trial court granted Wife’s motion to set aside the property and support provisions and later modified support in Wife’s favor.
- Husband appealed both orders, arguing (1) insufficient basis for set-aside relief, (2) error in denying a statement of decision, and (3) the support modification was barred by nonmodifiable-support terms and stayed by his appeal under Code of Civil Procedure § 916.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the dissolution judgment’s property and support provisions for duress and extrinsic fraud or mistake.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to issue a statement of decision on the set-aside motion.
3. Whether the trial court lacked authority to modify support because the agreement made support nonmodifiable or because an appeal stayed further proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure § 916.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order setting aside the judgment’s property and support provisions.
- The Court of Appeal held the evidence, viewed favorably to Wife, supported findings of duress and extrinsic fraud or mistake, and no abuse of discretion occurred.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a statement of decision, finding no reversible error or prejudice on this record.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the subsequent support modification order, concluding the agreement did not bar modification and § 916 did not stay the trial court from addressing support.

## Legal Principles

- Equitable relief may be granted from dissolution judgment provisions incorporating a marital settlement agreement when a spouse proves duress or extrinsic fraud or mistake that prevented a fair opportunity to protect that spouse’s interests.
- A trial court’s order granting such equitable relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual determinations are upheld if supported by substantial evidence.
- A statement of decision is not required for every postjudgment motion ruling; reversal requires a showing of prejudice that impairs appellate review.
- Support terms are not treated as nonmodifiable absent clear, enforceable language; courts retain statutory authority over support consistent with public policy.
- An appeal stays only proceedings that would directly or indirectly affect the order or judgment on appeal; postjudgment support proceedings may continue when they do not affect the appealed order within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure § 916.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld equitable set-aside relief from dissolution judgment provisions because substantial evidence supported duress and extrinsic fraud or mistake, found no prejudicial error in the absence of a statement of decision, and confirmed that the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify support despite the claimed nonmodifiability and a pending appeal.


In re Marriage of Baltins, 212 Cal. App. 3d 66, 260 Cal. Rptr. 403 (Ct. App. 1989)