Family Code Section 2343

Summary

California Family Code § 2343 allows a court to delay the final termination of a marriage beyond the usual waiting period when justified by good cause or agreement. Under this section, after determining a marriage should end, the court may retain jurisdiction and set a future date to enter the final divorce decree. Until that specified date, the parties remain legally married; on that date the marital status automatically terminates and the parties become unmarried. The statute reflects California’s policy that a failed marriage should not be unnecessarily prolonged by unresolved issues – once a marriage is irretrievably broken, the court can end it promptly while reserving other matters for later resolution.

Relevant Cases

• Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786 – The court granted a writ requiring the trial court to bifurcate (separate) the divorce (marital status) issue from other matters. Citing legislative intent “that the dissolution of marriage should not be postponed” by unresolved custody or support issues, the court held that only a minimal showing is needed to obtain bifurcation and that an opposing spouse must show compelling reasons to delay the divorce.
• In re Marriage of Fink (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 357 – The court approved a trial court’s exercise of discretion to enter an interlocutory divorce decree (dissolving the marriage) before resolving property, support, or custody issues. Fink held that under the Family Law Act a trial court may “bifurcate the trial” and enter a separate interlocutory dissolution judgment while reserving other issues for later, effectively allowing the marriage to end first.
• In re Marriage of Stuart (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 834 – A husband appealed only custody and support orders, abandoning any attack on the portion of the decree dissolving the marriage. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to the divorce portion and ordered the final divorce decree entered after the statutory waiting period. The court noted California’s “divisible divorce” policy – once a marriage has irretrievably broken, the marital status should not be held up by separate issues.
• Hull v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 139 – In a landmark Supreme Court decision, the court explained the “divisible divorce” concept. It held that once the marital relationship has failed, ending the marriage itself serves the public welfare, regardless of unresolved property disputes. Thus, a final divorce should not be contingent on settling ancillary issues. Hull underscores that courts may grant a divorce even if related issues remain pending. (Full text.)

Examples

• Example 1: Spouses agree to divorce, but one wants more time to sell the family home or await a life event. Under § 2343, the court can set a future date (for example, three months ahead) for entry of the final divorce judgment while retaining jurisdiction. The couple remains married until that specified date. On the future date, the court enters the final decree and the marriage terminates. This avoids forcing the parties to remain married longer than needed while still allowing time to resolve remaining matters.
• Example 2: A husband needs to delay divorce to maintain his wife on his health insurance after a serious illness. Both parties stipulate to retain jurisdiction and postpone finalization. The court uses § 2343 to order the divorce finalization at a later date (beyond the six-month waiting period). Until then they stay married, ensuring continuity of benefits. When the future date arrives, the divorce takes effect and their marital status ends.