Judge Properly Denied Motion to Reinstate Divorce That Was Vacated by Stipulation

Thursday, August 27, 2026

Page 1

Judge Properly Denied Motion to Reinstate Divorce That Was Vacated by Stipulation

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A couple that was divorced on Dec. 15, 2023 when a judge signed an order granting a default judgment of dissolution, and un-divorced on March 5, 2025 when the court acceded to a stipulation of the parties to set aside the previous orders, remain married, under yesterday’s decision of the Third District Court of Appeal rejecting the husband’s contention that there was no authority for the action.

Five days after Sacramento Superior Court Judge Alexander Pal reinstated the marriage, husband Carlos Ernesto Perez moved for an order vacating the order, arguing that the stipulation was the product of coercion and that, in any event, the jurist acted outside the issues to be discussed at a mandatory settlement conference.

That motion was denied.

Mesiwala’s Opinion

Justice Shama Mesiwala authored the unpublished opinion affirming the judgment. She wrote:

“Family Code sections 2122 and 3691 and Code of Civil Procedure section 473. subdivision (b) contain time limits for bringing a request to set aside a default judgment. Those time limits are inapplicable here because the court did not set aside the default judgment under any of those provisions. It did so based on the parties’ agreement.”

There is, she noted, a strong public policy in favor of promoting the settlement of family law matters.

“The only limitation is that parties may not enter agreements that contravene public policy,” the justice said, remarking:

“The parties’ voluntary agreement to set aside the default judgment does not contravene public policy. It aligns with the policy of promoting settlements in family law matters.”

Argument Rejected

It did not matter, Mesiwala declared, that the validity of the default judgment—the wife maintained that she had not been properly served—went beyond the issues slated to be heard at the settlement conference.

“The court “s order setting the mandatory settlement conference did not preclude the parties from discussing or reaching agreement on other matters in the litigation, including the default judgment,” she said, adding:

“More importantly, the parties voluntarily agreed to set aside the entire default judgment not just the part limited to property issues. Our public policy encourages such agreements.”

At the March 5, 2025 hearing, both parties swore they had been paid coerced into entering into the stipulation, Mesiwala recited, saying that there was no abuse of discretion in declining to credit Perez’s subsequent contrary assertion.

The case is Marriage of Perez, C104512.