California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re Marriage of Capos is that a family law order establishing child support arrears is not void for lack of due process when the requesting party clearly stated the relief sought in supporting documentation attached to the formal request, under circumstances where the opposing party received actual notice and filed a substantive response on the merits.

The Rule of County of Del Norte v. Britt is that a responding party who prevails in a receivership proceeding under Health and Safety Code section 17980.7(c) is entitled to attorney fees and court costs under section 17980.7(c)(11), even against a municipal enforcement agency, because this more recent and specific statute creates an exception to the general rule of section 17984 that shields public agencies from cost liability, under circumstances where the responding party was improperly named as a defendant and achieved complete vindication on the claims against them.

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc. v. Best Naturals, Inc. is that Proposition 65 pre-suit notice requirements under California Code of Regulations, title 27, section 25903 are satisfied by substantial compliance rather than strict compliance, under circumstances where the notice serves the regulation's underlying purposes of allowing investigation, cure, and settlement of alleged violations.

The Rule of Greely v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot use the spousal exception under Code of Civil Procedure section 700.160(b)(2) to levy on deposit accounts held in the name of a bigamous spouse without a court order, because a bigamous marriage is void ab initio and the supporting spousal affidavit is therefore false, under circumstances where the marriage was bigamous at inception regardless of whether it has been formally annulled.

The Rule of Hiller v. Marin Municipal Water District is that challenges to water rate ordinances must be brought through validation proceedings within 120 days of adoption, and failure to participate in a water district's validation action bars all subsequent constitutional and substantive challenges to the rates, under Government Code section 53759's mandatory validation statute requirements.

The Rule of Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach v. Sonoma County Sheriff's Office is that Government Code section 25303.7 grants mandatory subpoena power to all sheriff oversight entities established by counties, under circumstances where the county has elected to create such an oversight entity within the meaning of the statute.

The Rule of Cleare v. Superior Court is that a school district cannot invoke the impossibility doctrine to excuse non-compliance with statutory teacher credentialing requirements until it has exhausted all available statutory remedies including seeking waivers from the Commission on Teaching Credentialing or State Board of Education, under circumstances where the district uses long-term substitutes beyond statutory limits instead of permanent credentialed teachers.

The Rule of NNN Capital Fund I, LLC v. Mikles is that lack of standing is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised for the first time on appeal and requires vacation of an arbitration award and remand for factual determination of standing, under circumstances where purported liquidating trustees may not have been properly elected under the company's operating agreement.

The Rule of County of Sacramento v. NKS Real Estate Holdings, Inc. is that a county may pursue a nuisance per se action against property owners who construct and lease accessory dwelling units without required building permits, under circumstances where the county has adopted ordinances expressly declaring permit violations to be public nuisances.

The Rule of Bagby v. Davis is that California law applies to collection actions in California courts regardless of where the judgment debtor lives, and that a voluntarily surrendered life insurance policy is treated as matured (not exempt) unless the proceeds are necessary for the debtor's support, under circumstances where the debtor seeks exemption from levy on accounts funded by surrendered insurance policy proceeds.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Danielle and Lewis Allen is that parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in place, under circumstances where the obligor seeks to enforce an accord and satisfaction agreement for less than the full arrearage amount.

The Rule of Dion v. Weber is that under the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund statutory scheme, trial courts are precluded from relitigating the merits of underlying fraud judgments when evaluating payment claims from the fund, under circumstances where the Secretary of State denies payment based on challenges to the validity of the original fraud judgment.

The Rule of Lu v. Greely is that a judgment creditor cannot levy upon a third party's separate deposit accounts by claiming the account holder is the judgment debtor's spouse when the marriage is void ab initio due to bigamy, under circumstances where the affidavit of spousal relationship supporting the notice of levy is based on a bigamous marriage that was illegal and void from inception.