Opinion

Baratti v. Baratti

  • 109 Cal. App. 2d 917
  • 242 P.2d 22
  • 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1937
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
Mar 24, 1952
Status
Published
Author
Shinn
On the bench
Vallee, Shinn
Cited by
58 cases

mistake of law where person knew facts and misunderstood legal consequences

How later courts described this case

  • mistake of law where person knew facts and misunderstood legal consequences

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

SHINN, P. J.

I dissent. The motion should have been granted. It was not denied upon the ground defendant had not moved promptly. She was granted leave to have the judgment vacated for trial of the paternity issue only. I do not understand this procedure. She should be permitted to present whatever defenses and claims she may have on behalf of herself and the child. The courts have almost invariably followed a liberal policy in allowing divorce cases to be tried on their merits. What better reason could *924 there be for granting relief than the discovery of pregnancy after default and judgment had been entered ? Upon a showing such as defendant made relief from default was called for in the exercise of sound judicial discretion and therefore was a matter of right, not of grace; it should not have been meted out in small inadequate doses. In my opinion the order should be reversed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.