Manickam v. Halagatti (In re Marriage of Manickam)

• Decision Date: 05 May 2021
• Docket Number: D078617
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re the Marriage of NAGENDRA MANICKAM and HEMA P. HALAGATTI. NAGENDRA MANICKAM, Appellant, v. HEMA P. HALAGATTI, Respondent.

In re the Marriage of NAGENDRA MANICKAM and HEMA P. HALAGATTI.

NAGENDRA MANICKAM, Appellant, v. HEMA P. HALAGATTI, Respondent.

D078617

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

May 5, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 2014-6-FL-013489)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, James E. Towery, Judge. Affirmed.

Brian Beckwith for Appellant.

Law Offices of John H. Perrott and John Henry Perrott for Respondent.

In this marital dissolution action, Nagendra Manickam appeals an order finding that he used community funds for non-community purposes and directing him to immediately pay approximately $265,000 to his former wife Hema P. Halagatti. Manickam contends the trial court erred by (1) staying all issues related to certain real property located in India, (2) denying his continuance request during trial, and (3) pressuring him to complete his presentation of evidence. We conclude Manickam has not shown reversible error and affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2014, Manickam filed an uncontested petition for dissolution of his nine-year marriage to Halagatti. The petition requested that the court order joint legal custody of their daughter, with physical custody to Halagatti. The petition requested that child support be "reserved," with some specific provisions regarding payment of health insurance and expenses for daycare and education. The petition also requested that the court award no spousal support and terminate its jurisdiction to order such support.

Manickam filed a declaration identifying the family home in Santa Clara, California as the sole community property asset. He proposed that it be awarded to himself in full. He did not request confirmation of his interest in any separate property or debts.

Halagatti filed a general appearance. She agreed to entry of judgment as requested. Neither Manickam nor Halagatti were represented by counsel.

At a hearing, the trial court expressed concern that the agreement was one-sided and unfair to Halagatti. Under questioning, Halagatti appeared unaware of her rights under California law. The court declined to approve the agreement and directed Halagatti to consult a private attorney. It set a further hearing six weeks later.

The transcript of the further hearing is not in the record. The court, however, entered judgment as requested by Manickam and agreed by Halagatti.

Three months later, Halagatti (now represented by counsel) filed a request for an order setting aside the judgment, awarding spousal and childsupport, and reconsidering the division of community property. Halagatti stated she had been physically and emotionally abused by Manickam and coerced into agreeing to the judgment. She maintained that Manickam's financial disclosures were false and incomplete because, among other things, they omitted various financial accounts, certain real property in India, and a movie production company owned by Manickam.

Manickam (now represented by counsel as well) opposed the request. He denied coercing Halagatti into agreeing to the judgment. He maintained that Halagatti "received" valuable real property in India, worth more than 50 percent of the couple's assets, as part of the dissolution. He explained that he transferred between $120,000 and $150,000 to India to purchase three properties in Halagatti's name. He stated, "as a part of [the] Asset division, the above properties were given to [Halagatti]." He acknowledged working on various movies but denied owning a movie production company or receiving any compensation for that activity.

After engaging in mediation, Manickam and Halagatti agreed to an order vacating the judgment. Their marriage remained dissolved. The court awarded child support to Halagatti and set a date for the exchange of financial information and reimbursement claims. The parties agreed to engage in settlement discussions.

Several months later, Halagatti filed a request for an order liquidating the couple's real property assets. She identified the Santa Clara house, as well as four properties in India, for liquidation. Two of the Indian properties were titled in Manickam's name, and two were in Halagatti's name. Halagatti alleged that one of the properties in Manickam's name was by far the most valuable. Halagatti noted that Manickam had identified as community property three other Indian properties, at least one of which washeld in the name of Halagatti's parents. Halagatti disputed that the community had any interest in those three additional properties.

In his opposition, Manickam argued that Halagatti was in "possession" of the two Indian properties identified by Halagatti as being titled in her name. He also argued that Halagatti was in "possession" of the three additional properties, and he stated that he was surprised to learn that one was titled in the name of Halagatti's mother. Manickam identified the Santa Clara house and the two Indian properties titled in his name as properties in his possession. He contended that his properties were worth less than Halagatti's properties (taking into account the three additional properties omitted from Halagatti's liquidation request), so in his view liquidation would result in a large loss to him.

It appears the court did not rule on the liquidation request. Instead, the parties entered into a stipulation resolving other matters and setting a trial date on various issues including credits and reimbursement. The parties estimated one full day for trial.

Manickam applied ex parte for a three-day trial, based on the complexity of the case and the number of anticipated witnesses, including the parties, their accounting experts, and an expert on Indian law. The court denied the request. It also vacated the trial date, ordered the parties' accountants to meet and confer, and referred the matter to a settlement officer.

At a settlement conference, the parties stipulated to an order directing Manickam to cooperate with his accountant before and during an upcoming international trip. They also set a further settlement conference.

In advance of a status conference, the parties described their inability to resolve the outstanding financial issues. Each party blamed the other forvarious difficulties and delays. At the conference, the court ordered the accountants to meet and confer in person to determine "what needs to be done on [the] case to be trial ready." The court set a further status conference, a mandatory settlement conference, and a two-day trial. The court directed Halagatti's counsel to prepare a formal order, but a signed order does not appear in the record.¹

Five months later, Manickam requested an order granting him exclusive control of the three additional properties in India whose status was disputed. He reiterated his claim that he had transferred money to Halagatti's family in India in order to buy property. He and Halagatti had "jointly invested" in the three properties using community property funds. He argued that he should be given control of the properties because Halagatti had disclaimed any interest in them and "has left the community assets by itself [sic]," so that Manickam was the managing spouse. He also argued, "Since [Halagatti] doesn't have any claims, we can remove these properties as community properties and [Manickam] can handle [them] separately as [the] property exists in India."

Halagatti opposed the request. She noted that the court had denied a prior request by Manickam, apparently on similar grounds, to join Halagatti's mother as a party in the dissolution proceeding. She also noted that Manickam "has already filed a Request for this same Relief in India, and the matter is now pending before the Court in India." She attached an online docket purporting to show the filing of an Indian lawsuit by Manickamagainst Halagatti and two family members. She requested that the court take judicial notice of documents from the Indian lawsuit, including a statement of Manickam's claims. In a supporting memorandum, Halagatti argued that the documents were relevant because they showed that Manickam had sought relief on the same issues in India. Halagatti argued that principles of comity counseled against adjudicating the same issues in California. She also argued that California was an inconvenient forum in which to hear these issues. Halagatti maintained that one of the disputed properties was owned by her mother and the remaining two properties were not owned by any family member. She contended that Manickam had not been "sufficiently honest and forthcoming" with the court because he did not disclose the lawsuit in his request.²

At the hearing on Manickam's request, the court began by summarizing the history of the proceedings. It noted that the case began with a "vastly overreaching" marital settlement agreement that it reluctantly approved only after compelling Halagatti to obtain independent legal advice. Halagatti then moved to set aside the judgment, which was eventually granted by stipulation, and the case started anew. The court noted it had set a trial on all remaining financial issues and was eager for the litigation to come to an end.

During the hearing, Manickam's counsel acknowledged that the Indian litigation covered some of the same properties. He asserted that the Indian courts had "parallel jurisdiction." He explained, "And those parties, they live in India, the property is in India, the actual land, and the transactionhappened in India. That's the reason the Indian case has to be there. [¶] The U.S. court, they don't have jurisdiction over the Indian properties. They do have...