Marriage of Baltins

260 Cal. Rptr. 403 (1989)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marriage of Baltins

California Court of Appeal
260 Cal. Rptr. 403 (1989)



Aldis Baltins (plaintiff) and Deanna Baltins (defendant) were married. Aldis was allegedly physically abusive during the marriage. Deanna filed a petition for dissolution but later dismissed the petition. The parties separated and agreed to a marital settlement agreement. The original handwritten agreement awarded Deanna custody of their child and awarded her child support and short-term spousal support. The agreement divided the marital property, although not equally, as Deanna received only approximately 10 to 15 percent of the community property. Aldis had become a doctor during the marriage and repeatedly told Deanna that his medical practice was solely his property. Aldis also told Deanna that she was not an equal partner in the marriage. Evidence indicated that Aldis told Deanna that if she did not sign the marital agreement, he would declare bankruptcy, resulting in her getting nothing. Throughout this process, Deanna went through three attorneys for various reasons, including one attorney withdrawing because Deanna was insistent on signing an agreement that was not in her best interest. Aldis told Deanna that he would not work with attorneys but only her. Ultimately, Aldis filed a new petition for dissolution of the marriage, along with an amended but substantially similar marital settlement agreement. When Deanna signed the agreement, she was not represented by counsel. Deanna also signed a waiver, permitting the dissolution proceedings to be tried as uncontested. Deanna did not appear at the hearing. The court granted dissolution, incorporating the parties’ written agreement. Subsequently, Deanna filed a motion to set aside the judgment. Deanna’s friends and her three former attorneys testified as to her fragile emotional state during the divorce process. Testimony indicated that Deanna was depressed, cried often, and was emotionally unable to confront Aldis about the agreement’s shortcomings. The court granted the motion. Aldis appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Barry-Deal, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 747,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 747,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership