In re Marriage of Balcof
Citation | 141 Cal.App.4th 1509,47 Cal.Rptr.3d 183 |
Decision Date | 15 August 2006 |
Docket Number | No. G035868.,G035868. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re MARRIAGE OF Ralph and Kathleen BALCOF. Ralph Balcof, Respondent, v. Kathleen Balcof, Appellant. |
Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Doeringer and Jeffrey W. Doeringer, Huntington Beach, for Appellant.
Honey Kessler Amado, Beverly Hills, for Respondent.
In a prior appeal,1 Kathleen Balcof challenged a judgment holding that a writing she and her husband, Ralph Balcof, signed during marriage did not constitute a transmutation of certain of his property interests to those of hers.2 We held that the writing satisfied the requirements for a transmutation of Ralph's interest in the marital residence and 20 percent of the stock in his separate property corporation. However, we observed that Ralph had been precluded from presenting evidence to the effect that he was under duress when he signed the writing. Consequently, we reversed and remanded the matter to give him an opportunity to present his evidence and to make his arguments concerning the enforceability of the otherwise valid transmutation. On remand, the trial court held that the transmutation document was unenforceable due to both duress and undue influence.
Kathleen appeals, challenging the judgment on a plethora of grounds. We hold that the trial court did not exceed the scope of this court's instructions on remand, and furthermore, that retrial was not precluded either because of a "judicial admission" on Ralph's part or because of case law concerning the use of extrinsic evidence. We also hold that substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings on both duress and undue influence. In addition, the trial court did not err in receiving the testimony of Attorney Brenda Agren, the tape recording of a discussion between Kathleen and the children, or the stipulated evidence that Kathleen struck Ralph in the face in front of the children. Finally, the statement of decision was not inadequate and the motion for new trial was properly denied. We affirm the judgment and the order denying the new trial motion.
Ralph and Kathleen were married in 1988. They had two children, born in 1990 and 1992, respectively. In October 1999, Ralph and Kathleen signed a writing concerning their marital residence and a portion of the stock in Ralph's separate property corporation. They separated three or four months later. Ralph filed a petition for dissolution in January 2000. Their marriage was dissolved as to status only on December 5, 2000.
The court bifurcated the trial proceedings pertaining to the effect of the October 1999 writing. The first issue to be tried was whether the writing constituted a transmutation of Ralph's community property interest in the marital residence and 20 percent of his stock in his separate property corporation, to Kathleen as her separate property. The second item to be tried, provided that the October 1999 writing were held to be a transmutation, was whether there were any defenses to the enforcement of the writing.
After a trial on the first issue, the court held that the October 1999 writing was ineffective to transmute property from that of Ralph to that of Kathleen. Given this, there was never any trial pertaining to Ralph's defenses to the enforceability of the October 1999 writing. Kathleen appealed from the judgment to the effect that the October 1999 writing was not a transmutation.
On appeal, we held that the October 1999 writing satisfied the transmutation requirements of Family Code section 852. However, we observed that Ralph had never had his opportunity to raise his claim of duress, so we remanded the matter for further trial proceedings.
On remand, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Ralph, holding that the October 1999 writing was unenforceable due to duress and undue influence. It thereafter denied Kathleen's new trial motion. Kathleen again appeals.
The following background information is taken directly from the prior opinion:
On remand, the trial court held that the April 17, 2002 judgment on reserved issues would remain in full force and effect.
(1) Introduction
Kathleen has chosen to wage a wide ranging attack on many fronts. She claims: (1) retrial was precluded because of a "judicial admission" on Ralph's part; (2) the case should not have been remanded because of case law concerning the use of extrinsic evidence; (3) the trial court exceeded the scope of the this court's instructions on remand; (4) the trial court's findings on duress were not supported by the evidence; (5) Ralph waived...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schneer v. Llaurado
... ... ( Banning v. Newdow (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 438, 457458, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 447 ; In re Marriage of Wood (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 671, 677, 190 Cal.Rptr. 469.) We deem father's premature notice of appeal to have been timely filed after the entry of ... 4th 86, 106, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 576, 326 P.3d 188 [" 'We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility' "]; In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 183 ["Appellate courts 'do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses' "]; 242 ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Elaine And Alan D. Margulis.Elaine Prentis–margulis
... ... 2. For clarity, we refer to the parties by their first names, as a convenience to the reader. We do not intend this informality to reflect a lack of respect. [Citation.] ( In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1513, fn. 2, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 183.) 3. Despite repeated requests from a court appointed forensic accountant, Alan never produced any account statements for the Sutro & Company or John Hancock investment accounts. As for the two community Charles Schwab IRA accounts, ... ...
-
Hasso v. Hapke
... ... It is not up to this court to reweigh the evidence. ( In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 183.) Here, substantial evidence supports the implied finding that CFI and Fish breached ... ...
-
Ellis v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc.
... ... (See In re Marriage of Niklas (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 28, 36, fn. 4, 258 Cal.Rptr. 921.) II. After continued litigation, the trial court awarded fees to Sklar's staff ... reassess credibility determinations, as “ ‘[t]he Court of Appeal is not a second trier of fact ... ’ [Citation.]” ( In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 183; Estate of Young (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 62, 76, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 520.) B. The trial court ... ...
-
§ 4.03 Modern Enforceability: Generally Accepted Equitable Limits
...198 S.W.3d 732, 745 (Tenn. App. 2005).[122] Marriage of Foran, 67 Wash. App. 242, 834 P.2d 1081 (1992).[123] Marriage of Balcof, 141 Cal. App.4th 1509, 47 Cal. Rpt.3d 183 (2006).[124] See e.g., Gaibaig v. Gaibaig, 717 P.2d 835 (Alaska 1986). See also, Gilley v. Gilley, 778 S.W.2d 862 (Tenn.......
-
The Few and Varying Published Decisions on the Presumption of Undue Influence
...Marriage of Kieturakis, 138 Cal. App. 4th 56 (2006);In re Marriage of Burkle, 139 Cal. App. 4th 712 (2006);In re Marriage of Balcof, 141 Cal. App. 4th 1509 (2006);In re Marriage of Lund, 174 Cal. App. 4th 40 (2009);In re Marriage of Starr, 189 Cal. App. 4th 277 (2010);In re Marriage of Foss......
-
What Is the Deal With Secret Recordings?
...Frio v. Superior Court, 203 Cal.App.3d 1480, 1490 (1998).13. Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 (effective 1/1/18).14. Marriage of Balcof, 141 Cal.App.4th 1509...
-
Transmutation and the Ascendance of Undue Influence
...of Matthews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624.24. In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 712.25. In re Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509. ...