BURKLE v. BURKLE
Filed 5/18/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
In re Marriage of JANET E. and RONALD W. BURKLE. | B179751 |
JANET E. BURKLE, Appellant, v. RONALD W. BURKLE, Respondent. | (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD390479) |
Story Continued from Part III…………
. The trial court's conclusion that Mr. Burkle did not conceal significant financial information from Ms. Burkle was fully justified.[1]
IV. Ms. Burkle's claim the agreement must be set aside for failure to serve the sworn disclosure declarations required by Family Code sections 2100 et seq. is without merit.
The Family Code requires the parties to a dissolution proceeding to serve on each other a preliminary, sworn declaration, on forms prescribed by the Judicial Council, identifying all assets and liabilities.[2] (Fam. Code, § 2104, subds. (a) & (c).) Similarly, before the parties to a dissolution proceeding enter into an agreement for the resolution of property issues, or before any trial, each must serve on the other â€
