Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re the Marriage of Stanley P. and Mary L. Henzie-Berman. v. Mary L. Henzie-Berman

December 7, 2010

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF STANLEY P. AND MARY L. HENZIE-BERMAN. STANLEY P. BERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY L. HENZIE-BERMAN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.

Marriage of Berman and Henzie-Berman CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

In this marriage dissolution proceeding, petitioner Stanley P. Berman (Husband) appeals from an order of the trial court awarding the family residence to respondent Mary L. Henzie-Berman (Wife) as her separate property. Husband contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence and, in any event, he is entitled to reimbursement for his equity interest in the property. We conclude Husband has appealed from a non-appealable order and dismiss.

Facts and Proceedings

We recite the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling from which this appeal is taken. (People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 901.)

Husband and Wife were married on June 27, 1997. It was the third marriage for each. The parties have two children.

At the time of the marriage, Husband owned a residence in an unincorporated area of Nevada County (the property). However, the name of Husband's prior wife (Catherine) was still on the deed to the property.

In order to refinance an existing loan on the property, the parties needed to get Catherine's name off the deed. Husband arranged for Catherine to execute a grant deed whereby she transferred her interest in the property to Husband and Wife. In addition, because Husband's credit was bad, Husband deeded his interest in the property to Wife so she could obtain the new loan in her name alone.

Thereafter, over the ensuing years, the parties refinanced the property twice. Husband never requested that Wife deed the property back to him. At one point during the marriage, Wife urged Husband to put money away for retirement. Husband responded that the property was her retirement.

The parties separated on January 31, 2008. Husband filed a petition for dissolution and, on June 17, 2008, the court entered an order awarding physical custody of the children to Wife and visitation to Husband, and requiring Husband to move from the property.

On November 12, 2008, the parties conducted a trial over the issue of ownership of the property. On November 18, the trial court issued an intended decision, finding that Husband had transferred the property to Wife as her sole and separate property. Husband thereafter requested modification of the decision and to present further testimony.

On June 30, 2009, the trial court entered judgment of dissolution, reserving jurisdiction over all other issues. On July 6, 2009, the court issued an order adopting its intended decision on the issue of ownership of the property and directing that judgment using the appropriate Judicial Council form be filed accordingly. On July 22, 2009, the court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.