Opinion ID: 700236
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Collateral effect of the California Dissolution Action

Text: 4 Henderson argues that the district court erred by failing to give the earlier California dissolution action of her marriage to Hook preclusive effect, either in the form of res judicata (claim preclusion) or collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). The record does not support her argument. Contrary to Henderson's repeated assertions, the California dissolution decision did not purport to adjudicate any property issues. The California Court of Appeals noted that instead of requesting confirmation of any particular assets as her separate property, [Henderson] declared, 'The full nature and extent of the community, quasi-community and/or separate property of the parties is unknown at this time and will be pleaded when ascertained.'  Henderson did not so supplement her pleading, however; instead she filed a request to enter a default judgment and checked boxes stating there is no agreement concerning property and there are no community or quasi-community assets to be disposed of by the court. The California court's statement that there was no community property in issue does not constitute an implicit holding that the truck was Henderson's separate property. 5 Henderson later attempted to set aside the judgment and filed an order to show cause for determination of her property rights. The California court, however, denied both motions and did not make any determination with respect to the truck in issue in the present case. The California courts thus did not decide the ownership of the truck and there are no inconsistencies between the California judgment and the district court's judgment. The district court did not err by failing to give any preclusive effect to the California judgment. 6