Marriage of Bell
Filed 7/31/06 Marriage of Bell CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re the Marriage of LAWRENCE AND CANDICE JO-NELL BELL. | |
| LAWRENCE BELL, Appellant, v. CANDICE JO-NELL BELL, Respondent. | E037911 (Super.Ct.No. SBF45993) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cynthia Ludvigsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Edmund L. Montgomery and Edmund L. Montgomery for Appellant.
Tetley Law Office and Frank O. Tetley for Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
In the underlying marital dissolution proceeding, the trial court granted the motion of Candice Bell to set aside a default judgment entered four years earlier, finding that she and her former husband, Lawrence Bell,[1] had failed to serve preliminary and final declarations of disclosure. (Fam. Code,[2] §§ 2104, 2105, 2122, subd. (f).) On appeal Lawrence insists that he complied with the disclosure requirements by serving Candice with an equivalent document and that, in any event, Candice's motion was untimely and there was no showing that she was prejudiced. We reject his contentions and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Lawrence and Candice had been married for more than 18 years when they separated in April 1999. Lawrence was 49 years old; Candice was 44. Their only child, Samantha, was 16 years old.
In July, Lawrence filed a petition to dissolve the marriage, along with a marital settlement agreement (MSA) signed by both parties. The form used by Lawrence was an E-Z legal form, bearing the following caveat: â€
