## Facts

- John and Raytha O’Connell dissolved their marriage; the dissolution judgment reserved jurisdiction over support and related orders, but did not dispose of John’s employer-provided life insurance.
- John later married Nona O’Connell and designated her as sole beneficiary of his Lockheed group life insurance policies.
- John moved to reduce spousal and child support based on disability.
- Raytha agreed to a reduction only if John designated her and the minor child (Richard) as life-insurance beneficiaries.
- At the hearing on John’s motion, John’s counsel objected that the life-insurance request was not raised by formal pleadings and would be unfair to Nona.
- The trial court reduced ongoing support and, as a substitute for support, ordered John to name Raytha and Richard as beneficiaries along with Nona.
- John died before changing the beneficiary designation; Raytha sought enforcement of the order, and Nona moved to vacate it for lack of jurisdiction and inadequate notice.
- The trial court denied Nona’s motion to vacate, and Nona appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the dissolution court had subject-matter jurisdiction to order an obligor spouse to maintain or change life-insurance beneficiary designations as security for, or a substitute for, support.
2. Whether the court could issue life-insurance-related orders in a postjudgment support-modification proceeding when the original judgment did not address the insurance.
3. Whether alleged defects in pleadings and notice to the current spouse/beneficiary required vacatur of the life-insurance order for lack of due process or jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Nona’s motion to vacate.
- The court held the dissolution court had continuing jurisdiction over support and could require life-insurance beneficiary designations as part of a support arrangement.
- The life-insurance order was treated as support-related (security/substitute), not an impermissible postjudgment property division.
- Any pleading or notice irregularities were procedural, not jurisdictional, and did not render the order void.

## Legal Principles

- A family court with continuing jurisdiction over support may order an obligor to maintain life insurance for the benefit of a former spouse and/or minor child as security for, or as an alternative means of satisfying, support obligations.
- When life-insurance relief is tied to support modification, it may be ordered within the court’s reserved and continuing jurisdiction even if the original judgment did not specifically adjudicate the insurance.
- Procedural defects in how relief is requested (including lack of formal responsive pleadings) generally constitute error within jurisdiction and render an order at most voidable on direct review, not void for lack of fundamental jurisdiction.
- A designated beneficiary’s interest before the insured’s death is generally an expectancy that may be altered by a valid court order directed to the insured in a dissolution/support proceeding.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a postjudgment order requiring the obligor spouse to name his former spouse and minor child as life-insurance beneficiaries alongside his current spouse, concluding the order fell within the dissolution court’s continuing support jurisdiction and that asserted notice and pleading defects did not deprive the court of power to act or justify post-death vacatur.


In re Marriage of O’Connell, 8 Cal. App. 4th 565, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 334 (Ct. App. 1992)