Marriage of Chandler
Filed2/15/07 Marriage of Chandler CA5
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court,rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinionsnot certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or orderedpublished for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
| In re the Marriage of ARLENE and GARY CHANDLER. |
|
|
ARLENE CHANDLER,
Appellant,
v.
GARY CHANDLER,
Respondent.
|
F049880
(Super. Ct. No. FL592048)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sharon Elizabeth Mettler, Judge.
Law Offices of Donald C. Duchow, and Donald C.Duchow, for Appellant.
Roger Lampkin, for Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Arlene Lynette Chandler appeals froman order denying her motion to set aside a judgment for dissolution of marriage. She contendsthe judgment is void as a matter of law because it is premised on a marriagealready void under Family Code[1] section2201, subdivision (a). We disagree and will affirm.
FACTUAL ANDPROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant claimed she married Michael Ellis inapproximately September 1993 and they later separated. An attorney advised shewas not married to Ellis, it was a â€
| Description | Appellant appeals froman order denying her motion to set aside a judgment for dissolution of marriage. She contends the judgment is void as a matter of law because it is premised on a marriage already void under Family Code section 2201, subdivision (a). Court disagree and affirm. |
| Rating |
