How have courts dealt with an order requiring husband to pay wife alimony and attorney's fees after the wife defaulted?

Respondent relies on Wallis v. Superior Court (1925) 72 Cal.App. 90. In Wallis, husband filed a divorce action. Pursuant to an order to show cause filed by wife, the trial court signed an order requiring husband to pay wife alimony and attorney's fees pendente lite. Wife failed to file an answer or demurrer, however, and a default was entered against her. After the default was entered, the order on the order to show cause was filed. (At p. 91.)

Husband failed to pay wife alimony and attorney's fees. The court issued an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Following a hearing on the order to show cause, the court held husband in contempt. (Wallis v. Superior Court, supra, 72 Cal.App. at pp. 91-92.)

On husband's petition for writ of certiorari to review the trial court's actions, husband contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant relief to wife after her default was entered. (Wallis v. Superior Court, supra, 72 Cal.App. at p. 92.) The appellate court did not agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief to wife after her default was entered. It noted that Civil Code section 137² gave the trial court the discretion to require husband to pay wife alimony while the divorce action was pending. (Id. at p. 93.) The action was still pending after wife's default was taken. (Ibid.) Therefore, the court held, the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the relief. (Ibid.)