Jorgensen v. Jorgensen
32 Cal.2d 13, 193 P.2d 728 (1948).

Procedure:Plaintiff wife appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted an interlocutory decree of divorce against defendant husband, in which a property settlement agreement was approved and adopted.

Facts: Mr. (D) and Mrs. (P) Jorgensen were married in 1924 and separated in 1944, executing an agreement that D would pay P $30,000 annually for her support and that of their children. P brought action for divorce in which D did not make an appearance. P obtained the divorce and later sought to have the provisions of the interlocutory decree relating to a recitation of their property settlement agreement invalidated on the grounds that D fraudulently misrepresented some of the property considered therein as separate property when it was community, and that P and her attorney relied upon D's representations to P's detriment; or, alternatively, D made his representations by mistake. D objected on the ground that P failed to state a cause of action and cross-complained praying his title to the assets in question be quieted. The court entered a judgment for D on the complaint and cross-complaint. P appeals.

Issue: The issue is whether W was deprived of a fair opportunity to litigate because of an alleged misrepresentation by H that certain assets were community?

Holding: No. Judgment affirmed.
A party who failed to assemble all necessary evidence should not be privileged to relitigate. The fraud in this instance was extrinsic to the divorce case. Although the husband owed a duty to properly account for the family property, it was not he who presented the information to the court. P and her attorney had a duty to investigate the facts.

Analysis: The husband did not make an appearance. The wife sought to set aside the divorce decree relating to the property settlement agreement on the grounds of fraud or mistake. She alleged that the husband fraudulently listed some community property assets as separate property of the husband, or, in the alternative, that the husband made his representations by mistake. The property settlement agreement provided that its provisions were final after either party obtained a final decree of divorce. The court held that the wife was not entitled to equitable relief. All of the assets were disclosed, and the wife failed to investigate the husband's classification of property as separate or community. Rather, she chose to rely on the statements of the husband as to what part of the disclosed property was community property.