Marriage of Valenzuela and Serrano CA4/1

── Marriage of Valenzuela and Serrano CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 Marriage of Valenzuela and Serrano CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re the Marriage of JACQUELINE VALENZUELA and JOSE ANGEL SERRANO. D086230 JACQUELINE VALENZUELA, Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23FL006669E) v. JOSE ANGEL SERRANO, Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles E. Bell, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Joseph Charles La Costa for Appellant. Jose Angel Serrano, in pro. per., for Respondent. Jacqueline Valenzuela appeals from a marital dissolution judgment directing the sale of a residential property and awarding the proceeds to her ex-husband Jose Angel Serrano. She contends the judgment should be reversed because Serrano allegedly committed perjury at trial. We reject this contention because the record on appeal contains no evidence of the alleged perjury, and Valenzuela never raised this claim or moved to set aside the judgment in the family court. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Valenzuela and Serrano were married in January 2021 and separated less than two months later. In June 2023, Valenzuela filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. The parties contested the disposition of a residential property in El Cajon. The family court conducted a trial to resolve this issue on November 15, 2024. The record on appeal does not include a reporter’s transcript or agreed or settled statement of the trial. On December 2, 2024, the court held a hearing to render its decision after trial. The court ordered the El Cajon property sold with the proceeds going solely to Serrano. The court directed Valenzuela’s counsel to prepare the judgment. No judgment was entered for over four months. In March 2025, before entry of judgment, Serrano requested sanctions against Valenzuela for failure to cooperate in the sale of the property. Valenzuela’s counsel responded with a declaration stating that Serrano had not contacted him and that he was willing to cooperate with Serrano’s efforts to sell the property. His declaration did not mention anything about Serrano committing perjury during the trial. The record does not reflect the court’s ruling on the sanctions request. On April 17, 2025, the court entered judgment directing sale of the property and awarding the proceeds to Serrano according to the terms of its prior ruling of December 2, 2024. Valenzuela filed this appeal from the judgment. She never filed a motion to set aside the judgment in the trial court. 2  DISCUSSION For the first time on appeal, Valenzuela contends that the judgment must be set aside under Family Code section 2122 because Serrano allegedly admitted that he committed perjury at the trial. She contends that Serrano made this admission in a letter he sent her “days after the trial.” This contention fails for two reasons. First, the record on appeal does not include either Serrano’s allegedly perjurious testimony or the letter in which he allegedly admitted committing perjury. There is no reporter’s transcript or other proper record of Serrano’s testimony at the trial on November 15, 2024. As for the letter, Valenzuela’s opening brief refers to “EXHIBIT 1” and “EXH