The applicant argues that this appeal is in fact governed by the provisions of the Family Code, Sections 2120 and following, according to which an application to quash a dissolution judgment may be made within one year of the date of the judgment. The applicant considers that these provisions of the Family Code should ease the stricter deadlines for overturning a section 473 judgment and have the effect of significantly extending the period within which a spouse can attack or amend a dissolution judgment for fraud, perjury, coercion, mental incompetence and error. Given that its original application, originally filed on January 20, 1998 and again filed on March 3, 1998, was filed within one year of the September 1997 dissolution judgment, it insists that these provisions of the Family Code advance their appeal time forward in time, both with respect to the application for annulment and the underlying dissolution judgment. The complainant`s argument is wrong. There are other legal grounds for seeking the quashing of a judgment or order. Here are the most important family law principles: the same principles were established in the case of Ramirez v. WCAB (1997) 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 1062 (unpublished 2nd DCA). In Ramirez, counsel for the applicant felt deceived by a key issue in the settlement interviews.

He tore up the C-R and threw it in the trash. Then he rushed out of the courtroom. The defence lawyer took the various pieces of the C-R out of the trash and put it back together. Then, without waiting for the applicant`s lawyer to return, defence counsel turned the C and R over to the WCJ for approval. The WCJ`s agreement for C-R was not upheld on appeal, as the applicant had been deprived of his royalty rights. The procedure would have been the correct one if the WCJ had conducted a hearing on this issue and allowed counsel for the applicant to be heard on the question of whether there was a good reason to refuse the RCI agreement. The 2nd DCA overturned the approval decision of C-R and cancelled C-R. Here, as in Rosevear, at the time of oral approval of the agreed dissolution regime, the complainant was well seen on the minutes of the banking conference/barconference.