Marriage of Vinci CA3

Filed 9/20/24 Marriage of Vinci CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of SUZANNE and THOMAS C099097 VINCI.

SUZANNE VINCI, (Super. Ct. No. 19FL03775)

Appellant,

v.

THOMAS VINCI,

Respondent.

Following the dissolution of their marriage, Suzanne Vinci (wife) and Thomas Vinci (husband) sought to divide their marital property. After a trial, the trial court issued an order characterizing and dividing various items of property but leaving for further proceedings the appropriate disposition of a commingled business asset. On appeal, wife challenges the court’s order, contending that it incorrectly characterized certain assets as husband’s separate property. We conclude that the challenged order is not appealable because it did not dispose of all the issues between the parties. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

1

BACKGROUND Husband and wife were married for approximately 10 years and separated in June 2019. They did not have any children. The trial court entered a judgment dissolving their marriage in March 2020. The trial court later held a trial to address “the characterization of the parties’ residential and business properties, vehicles, personal loans and other assets and debts.” Evidence at the trial, which was not transcribed by a court reporter, demonstrated that the parties lived in a residential property that husband had inherited from his mother in 2005. During the marriage, husband decided to buy a small commercial property using equity from the residential property. The parties jointly signed a loan to obtain the equity, which was then used to purchase the commercial property and to pay wife for repairs she had made to the residential property. The remainder of the proceeds were disbursed to husband’s bank account. As part of the transaction, husband signed a deed conveying an interest in the residential property to wife. The parties disputed whether husband understood that this would affect his ownership interest in the property and the extent to which husband relied on wife’s expertise in property transactions. On April 25, 2023, the trial court issued its “Findings and Order After Hearing.” The court ruled that the residential property was husband’s sole and separate property. It reached the same conclusion with respect to the commercial property. The court also characterized several other assets and liabilities as husband’s separate property or debts; and it divided various items of community property between the parties. The trial court, however, “was unable to render a decision” with respect to a commingled business asset without a proper business valuation. The court noted that no such valuation was provided at trial; nor was there an inventory of business assets or a tracing of business purchases made during the marriage. Without a business valuation, the court also declined to address the characterization and disposition of a car purchased for business use. The court stated that, “[i]f the business is deemed separate property, the