Legal Question in Family Law in California

California fl-130 question. My proposed judgment fl-180 with attached settlement agreement signed by both parties and filed with the court with fl-170 fl-190 and fl-144 forms was rejected because "the party was served outside California, must proceed with 'status only'". Respondent did not make an appearance and I am proceeding with default.

My thought is that the rejection occurred because court feels there is no jurisdiction to enact the judgment as respondent has not made an appearance (but was served and acknowledged receipt of service). I did not file form fl-130 and it seems that filing this form by respondent would give the court jurisdiction to enact the proposed judgement. Is this correct?

As a follow up. what boxes should I fill on fl-130? It is clear that I should check box 1(a) and 2(d) but how about 2(a) and 2(e)?


Asked on 11/09/12, 11:54 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys

You are correct about the jurisdictional issue and that your ex-to-be must make an appearance.

Form fl-130 is the simple way to do that. You should use the services of the ACCESS Center at San Francisco Superior Court to help with exactly how to fill it out for your particular situation.

Read more
Answered on 11/11/12, 7:49 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Family Law, Divorce, Child Custody and Adoption questions and answers in California