Peyman v. Peyman (In re Marriage of Peyman)

• Decision Date: 19 April 2021
• Docket Number: B300628
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re the Marriage of SHERLY and RAMIN PEYMAN. SHERLY PEYMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIN PEYMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

In re the Marriage of SHERLY and RAMIN PEYMAN.SHERLY PEYMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIN PEYMAN, Defendant and Appellant.

B300628

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

April 19, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD527501)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael R. Powell, Judge. Affirmed.

Joel S. Seidel for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Offices of Katherine R. Cohan and Katherine R. Cohan for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Ramin Peyman appeals from an order denying his request for a modification of his obligations for child and spousal support to zero. Ramin¹ filed the request 10 days after the family court ordered Ramin to pay $6,027 in monthly child support and $4,500 in monthly spousal support following a six-day postjudgment hearing. On appeal, Ramin contends the family court abused its discretion in denying the requested modification because he had not been receiving any pay from his law firm since September 2018 (before the hearing), and Ramin's law partner obtained a temporary restraining order (after the hearing but before the support order) preventing Ramin from drawing income from his law practice. Ramin argues his deteriorating financial condition constituted a material change in circumstances warranting modification of his support obligations. Because most of Ramin's argued changed circumstances occurred before the family court issued its statement of decision setting Ramin's support obligations, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND²

A. The Parties and the Marital Dissolution

Sherly and Ramin were married in June 1999. They separated in May 2010, and a judgment dissolving their marriagewas entered in March 2012. They have three minor children together, who at the time of the postjudgment hearing were 11, 12, and 15 years old.

Ramin is an attorney, and for more than 20 years he had practiced law as an equal partner with Pejman Rahnama at the Law Offices of Peyman & Rahnama, Inc. (P&R). P&R specialized in workers' compensation and personal injury contingency cases; it earned yearly gross income of more than $4 million in 2015, 2016, and 2017. Although Ramin and Rahnama remained equal partners in P&R, in November 2016 they entered into a corporate compensation agreement providing that Rahnama would receive an additional $1,000 per week commencing January 1, 2016 and an additional $250,000 upon the sale of a jointly-owned office building, in recognition of Rahnama's greater contribution of time to the practice after 2010.

Sherly has a bachelor's degree in psychology and child development. She did not work outside the home during the marriage, and from the parties' separation in 2010 through 2018, Sherly was not employed and made minimal efforts to obtain training or work.

As part of a marital settlement agreement incorporated into the March 2012 judgment of dissolution, Ramin and Sherly stipulated to joint legal custody of the children, with Sherly having primary physical custody. Ramin agreed to pay monthly child support of $4,000 and spousal support of $3,500. The parties agreed in May 2013 to increase Ramin's custody timewith the children and reduce his child support obligation to $3,500 per month.

B. 2018 Hearing on Custody and Support Orders

On July 5, 2016 Ramin filed a request for order (RFO) to modify custody and child and spousal support. On March 12, 2018 Sherly filed an RFO to modify spousal support. The family court³ set an evidentiary hearing on the parties' RFOs. On April 16, 2018 the matter was assigned to a long cause courtroom for a hearing that was ultimately set for October 29, 2018.

On April 18, 2018 Ramin filed an income and expense declaration reporting a significant change in income over the prior year because "[b]eing involved in this litigation has reduced my input by 60% [and m]y partner and I have started dissolution of Partnership." On October 18, 2018 Ramin submitted an income and expense declaration reporting $19,500 in monthly wages and $12,888 in monthly self-employment income based on his average monthly share of P&R's net profits over the 18 months ending June 30, 2018. Ramin also reported non-retirement assets of $160,000, including equity in his home.

Ramin filed a trial brief on October 18, 2018, in which he stated, "[Ramin] is a partner in a law firm, which is currently in the process of dissolution. . . . [Ramin] has been unable to work at a level commensurate to his partner for many years, directly resulting in the break-up of the law practice. Additionally, as described more fully in the [income and expense declaration] [Ramin] owes his partner significant back-compensation pursuant to a Corporate Compensation Agreement for [Ramin's]failure to contribute equally to the firm.⁴ The ultimate financial impact and reduction of [Ramin's] income in the future, once the firm's dissolution and the unwinding of other joint investments with his partner are complete, is unknown. However, [Ramin] anticipates that his earning capacity will be severely diminished as he will not only owe his partner significant sums but will unlikely be able to maintain a same level of legal practice as a solo practitioner."⁵

The family court⁶ held a six-day long cause hearing on the parties' RFOs from October 29 to November 6, 2018, and after receiving posthearing briefing, the matter was submitted on November 21, 2018. On December 18, 2018 the court issued an 81-page "Statement of Orders and Reasons After Hearing on Post-Judgment Requests for Orders" (statement of decision).⁷

With respect to child support, the court found Ramin's October 18, 2018 income and expense declaration "reported average monthly income of $19,500. It appears that in 2016 and 2017, his average monthly income was closer to $50,000. Information submitted for his law practice income for 2017 and the first six months of 2018 reflect average monthly income of $23,880. The Court uses that for [Ramin's] self-employment income." The court further found Ramin had perquisite income of $5,279 per month, but his "other potential sources of income, including rental income are negative." The court found Sherly did not have income and declined to impute income to her.⁸ Based on these findings and the court's order regarding the parties' custodial timeshare,⁹ the court calculated monthly childsupport using the DissoMaster¹⁰ program and ordered Ramin to pay $6,027 per month in child support effective January 1, 2019.

With respect to spousal support, the family court considered the statutory factors for determining support set forth in Family Code section 4320.¹¹ The court found Ramin "owns interests in limited liability companies that do not generate income. He owns a home and has a retirement account, and owes money to his law partner, the IRS, on his credit card, and to former attorneys in the sum of approximately $310,000. He has not shown an inability to borrow on his assets." The court found Ramin's "income fluctuates and is undergoing some transition, but he has the demonstrated ability to earn over $25,000 per month and has the ability to pay spousal support." The court ordered Ramin to pay $4,500 per month in spousal supportcommencing January 1, 2019, reduced to $2,500 per month after February 1, 2020.¹²

C. Rahnama's Lawsuit Against Ramin

On November 30, 2018 Rahnama filed a complaint and petition against Ramin and P&R for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for appointment of a provisional director. (Rahnama v. Peyman et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2018, No. 18STCP02990); the Rahnama action.) The same day Rahnama applied ex parte for appointment of a provisional director and issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining Ramin from withdrawing funds from P&R.

In his declaration in support of his application, Rahnama stated, "Commencing in or about February 2018, P&R began experiencing a downturn in gross and net income due to a variety of factors," including Ramin's "lack of attention to and involvement in the work of the practice." "Despite my repeated protests . . . that we must both reduce, if not abate, our claims to income from the firm . . . [Ramin] has instead forcibly and argumentatively forced our comptroller . . . to give him blank firm checks, which he has written to himself and deposited, the last being two such checks which he obtained on November 22, 2018, which he filled out for a total of $12,000, and deposited into his personal bank account." Rahnama stated these withdrawals forced Rahnama to advance personal funds into P&R so that it could make payroll and cover litigation advances. Rahnama also stated he was owed $151,000 pursuant to the 2016 corporatecompensation agreement plus $250,000 upon the sale of P&R's building.

On November 30, 2018 the trial court¹³ entered a temporary restraining order, ordering that until the court adjudicated Rahnama's petition for appointment of a provisional director of P&R, the partners were enjoined from taking payment or withdrawing money from P&R's accounts.

On January 3, 2019 Ramin filed an opposition to the petition. In his supporting declaration, Ramin stated P&R's financial distress did not result from a decrease in gross income, but instead, from Rahnama's attempts to create liquidity problems by holding money in the firm's client trust account. Ramin stated P&R was "on track to gross somewhere around $4 million again in 2018," in line with its performance the previous three years. Ramin also submitted a report from a forensic certified public accountant prepared in the family court action showing "the [firm's]...