Court Opinion

ID: 9855930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:34:31.293974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:17.937782
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J.
I concur. I am not prepared to agree that where the parties occupy a confidential relation to one another the concealment or suppression of material evidence may not constitute extrinsic fraud. (See Jorgensen v. Jorgensen, 32 Cal.2d 13 [193 P.2d 728].) However as pointed out in the Jorgensen case where the husband takes a hostile position a duty is cast on the wife and her attorney to make a reasonable effort to investigate the facts. In the Jorgensen case the court said at page 19 : “ It is necessary to examine the facts in the light of the policy that a party who failed to assemble all his evidence at the trial should not be privileged to re-litigate the case, as well as the policy permitting a party to seek relief from a judgment entered in a proceeding in which he was deprived of a fair opportunity fully to present his case.”
While it is alleged that respondent concealed the fact of his having made a state gift tax return, the fact of his having made a federal gift tax return was developed on the previous trial. If he made the one it should have put appellant and her attorney on inquiry whether he had made the other. There is no allegation in the complaint or in the proposed amended complaint that any effort was made by appellant or her counsel in the previous action to ascertain whether a state gift tax return had been filed. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record I agree that the demurrer was properly sustained.
(Kaufman, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate herein.)