EvidenceBifurcationDissolution of marriageDivisible divorcebifurcationmarital statusdissolutiondivisible divorce
Facts
After Aissa Gionis filed petitions for legal separation and dissolution, both parties sought custody and support orders, and the parties later stipulated to proceed on the dissolution petition. Thomas moved to bifurcate marital status from custody, support, and property issues, declaring that the marriage had irretrievably failed, reconciliation was impossible, the status trial would be brief, and the remaining issues would require discovery and a longer trial. He also explained personal and financial reasons for wanting prompt resolution of marital status. Aissa opposed on procedural grounds only and did not identify any substantive prejudice from bifurcation.
Issue
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Thomas's motion to bifurcate marital status from the remaining issues on the ground that he had not shown sufficient cause because the case had been on file for less than a year?
Rule
Consistent with the legislative policy favoring no-fault dissolution and bifurcation of marital status, only slight evidence is necessary to obtain bifurcation and resolution of marital status. A spouse opposing bifurcation must present compelling reasons for denial.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a dissolution action in San Diego, Elena Marquez moves to try marital status first. Her declaration states the marriage is irretrievably broken, reconciliation is impossible, the status issue can be resolved in a short hearing, and the remaining disputes over property, support, and custody will require extensive discovery and a long trial. David Marquez opposes only by arguing the case has been pending for just eight months.
How should the court most likely rule?
Explanation. The majority held that only slight evidence is necessary to obtain bifurcation of marital status, and a declaration that reconciliation is impossible, the status trial will be brief, and the remaining issues will take longer is sufficient. The opposing spouse must present compelling reasons for denial. Mere reliance on the action's relative youth is not enough. (Derived from Gionis v. Superior Court (n.d.).)