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 Victor and Sandra Stupansky. v. Sandra Monette

April 2, 2013

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF VICTOR AND SANDRA STUPANSKY. VICTOR STUPANSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA MONETTE, APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. SCCVFL081436)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.

Marriage of Stupansky 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

This appeal arises from the dissolution of marriage of Victor Stupansky (Victor) and Sandra Monette (Sandra). Both parties challenge the trial court's judgment regarding the division of property.

In part I, we discuss Victor's appellate contentions. He argues the trial court erred in finding that his Petaluma residence was transmuted from separate property to community property, and in determining that Sandra was only required to reimburse the community $51,612.50 for the funds Sandra applied to her separate property duplex in Santa Rosa.

In part II, we discuss Sandra's contentions in her cross-appeal. She asserts the trial court erred in failing to order Victor to return all the money he withdrew from a community certificate of deposit and deposited into his separate account, and in excluding evidence concerning Victor's misappropriation of community funds.

As we will explain, given the limited appellate record in this judgment roll appeal, the parties did not meet their appellate burden to demonstrate reversible trial court error. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

We limit our background recitation to the circumstances relevant to the contentions on appeal. Moreover, because the parties elected to proceed without a reporter's transcript, the relevant facts are taken from the trial court's findings and conclusions. (Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)

Prior to their marriage, Victor owned a residence in Petaluma and Sandra owned a duplex in Santa Rosa. They married on September 8, 1991, resided in the Petaluma residence and rented out both units of the Santa Rosa duplex.

Victor and Sandra drafted the Stupansky Family Trust in 1993 and transferred the Petaluma property into the trust. They withdrew the Petaluma property from the trust in 1994 and transferred it to themselves in joint tenancy. The parties then sold the property in 2002 for a profit of $610,000 and used the proceeds to purchase six unimproved lots in Siskiyou County. They combined two of the lots, built a family residence on them, and left the other four lots unimproved.

Victor and Sandra separated on October 2, 2008.

At trial, the parties disputed whether the Petaluma residence should be characterized as community or separate property, whether the community had a right to reimbursement for expenditures on the Santa Rosa duplex, and whether money was misappropriated from bank accounts. According to the trial court, "both parties made numerous allegations of wrong-doing and concealment of community assets[;] however, neither provided much evidence to support these allegations and the evidence that was provided was often inadequate. The court was required to painstakingly sift through numerous documents and try to piece together patterns to determine whether such allegations were supported. Frequently the court found itself in the ...


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.