# Baratti v. Baratti

> California Court of Appeal · March 24, 1952 · 109 Cal. App. 2d 917

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550901

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBERT ANTHONY BARATTI, Respondent, v. CLAIRE MARIE BARATTI, Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 24, 1952
- **Citations:** 109 Cal. App. 2d 917; 242 P.2d 22; 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1937
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Shinn
- **Judges:** Vallee, Shinn
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550901

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550901. Public record. Not legal advice.