## Facts

- Maria Leslie and Byron Georgiou married in 1985, separated in 2003, and their marital status was terminated by bifurcated judgment in 2005.
- Georgiou (an attorney) had an “of counsel” relationship with Milberg Weiss starting in 2000 that provided a referral fee interest in certain class actions.
- Milberg Weiss represented the Regents of the University of California in the Enron securities class action, which produced very large settlements and an attorneys’ fee request.
- In February 2007, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that expressly addressed Georgiou’s prospective Enron referral fee as a community asset; the issue had been litigated.
- In December 2007, the dissolution judgment incorporated the MSA, thereby adjudicating the Enron referral-fee interest.
- In 2008, a federal court awarded Milberg Weiss $688 million in fees; Georgiou received a 9% referral fee and paid Leslie $4 million in September 2008 under the MSA.
- More than three years after entry of judgment, Leslie filed a separate action under Family Code § 1101 alleging Georgiou breached fiduciary duties during dissolution by failing to disclose the “true value” of the Enron referral-fee interest.

## Issues

1. Whether Family Code § 1101 authorizes a separate post-judgment fiduciary-duty action regarding a community asset that was disclosed, litigated, and adjudicated in the dissolution judgment.
2. If § 1101 could apply post-judgment, whether the action was time-barred (an issue the appellate court did not reach).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary adjudication for Georgiou.
- Section 1101 did not authorize Leslie’s post-judgment action because the Enron referral-fee interest was not concealed and had been litigated and fully adjudicated in the judgment.
- Leslie’s only available avenue to attack the adjudication based on disclosure deficiencies was a set-aside request under Family Code § 2122 within the applicable one-year period; having failed to proceed timely, the family court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the later action.
- Because the court affirmed on the statutory-scope ground, it did not decide the limitations question addressed by the trial court in the alternative.

## Legal Principles

- Family Code § 1101 provides remedies for breach of spousal fiduciary duties in managing and controlling community property, but it does not function as an independent post-judgment mechanism to reopen or relitigate an asset already adjudicated in a dissolution judgment when the asset was disclosed and litigated.
- Claims asserting inadequate disclosure or valuation of an asset adjudicated in a dissolution judgment must be brought, if at all, through the Family Code § 2122 set-aside framework and its time limits.
- Statutory set-aside limits in § 2122 operate as jurisdictional constraints; untimely set-aside relief leaves the court without authority to grant post-judgment relief that would disturb the final adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court held that a former spouse may not use Family Code § 1101 to bring a post-judgment fiduciary-duty action targeting an asset expressly addressed and adjudicated in the dissolution judgment; any challenge based on disclosure deficiencies must proceed under the time-limited set-aside provisions of Family Code § 2122.


In re Marriage of Georgiou & Leslie, 218 Cal. App. 4th 561, 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 254 (Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2013)