Court Opinion

ID: 9629581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:45:18.967777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:21.419164
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J.
I concur in the judgment. It should be noted that the majority opinion, in applying and following the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act (holding that “Defendant was unquestionably prejudiced by reason of his military service in making his defense to plaintiff’s motion”) in divorce litigation, is substantially inconsistent with the holding in Miller v. Miller (1945), 26 Cal.2d 119 [156 P.2d 931]. In the last cited ease the showing of prejudice was much stronger than in the case at bar. It appeared, as noted in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Carter at page 127 of 26 Cal.2d, that there the defendant, who likewise was in military service and absent, was the only person who had knowledge of the facts and could rebut the charge upon which the action against him was taken. Nevertheless this court sustained the drastic action of setting aside a final judgment in his absence after a request on his behalf for even a three weeks’ continuance was denied. The Miller case should be overruled.
The true rule as to the burden of proof in applications of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act is stated in Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Superior Court (1946), 28 Cal.2d 61, 67 [168 P.2d 665], “The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act . . . leaves discretion in the trial court [assuming the evidence admits of conflicting inferences] in resolving the issue as to whether ‘the ability of plaintiff to prosecute the action or the defendant to conduct his defense is . . . materially affected by reason of his military service’ but it, in effect, places the burden of proof upon the party resisting a postponement and ‘unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of . . . [the party to prosecute or defend] is not materially affected’ a postponement of the trial by the court is mandatory ‘on application to it by such person or some person on his behalf. ’ (The section provides that on such application, unless the court is of the view stated, the action or proceeding ‘shall ... be stayed as provided in this Act.’).”
In my view, upon the facts of this case, as upon the facts of the Miller case, a stay was mandatory.