Opinion ID: 1273330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Third. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to enter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage during pendency of the husband's appeal from the interlocutory judgment?

Text: No. The wife contends that under the authority of In re Marriage of Stuart, supra, 27 Cal. App.3d 834, the trial court was authorized to enter a final judgment herein even though the husband's appeal from the interlocutory judgment was pending, inasmuch as in his brief he has made no attack on that part of the interlocutory judgment ordering a dissolution of the marriage. Stuart, however, does not support the wife's contention. In that matter, as here, the husband did not pursue his appeal from the portion of the judgment ordering the dissolution; but, unlike the situation here, the wife there moved to dismiss the appeal insofar as it purported to be from that portion of the interlocutory judgment which declared that the parties were entitled to have their marriage dissolved, and after her motion was granted, a remittitur was issued directing the trial court to enter a final judgment of dissolution upon proper application of either party, or on the court's own motion, after the expiration of six months from the date the court acquired jurisdiction of the wife. In the present matter, on the other hand, there was no motion to dismiss the appeal insofar as it purported to be from that portion of the interlocutory judgment which declared that the parties were entitled to have their marriage dissolved, and no remittitur issued directing the trial court to enter a final judgment of dissolution. Accordingly, the purported final judgment obtained by the wife during pendency of the husband's appeal from the interlocutory judgment is a nullity. The judgment is affirmed insofar as it orders a dissolution of the marriage, but in all other respects is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views herein expressed.