Carrasco v. Carrasco CA2/3

Filed 9/16/13 Carrasco v. Carrasco CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SONIA CARRASCO, B241686

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PD044362) v.

JESUS CARRASCO,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia M. Ito, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Mark J. Warfel and Mark J. Warfel for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Stanley Silver and Stanley Silver; Law Offices of Alan Goldberg and Alan M. Goldberg for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

Sonia Carrasco (wife) appeals a judgment following trial of a marital dissolution proceeding. The essential issue presented is whether certain real property on Berg Street (the Berg property or Berg), which was conveyed by Josefa Carrasco (Josefa) to her brother, Jesus Carrasco (husband), should be deemed to be community property. We conclude the trial court properly determined the Berg property was not a community asset, reject wife’s other contentions, and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Trial proceedings. The parties separated in 2007, after 14 years of marriage. The dissolution trial was conducted over a period of days between June and September of 2011. Various issues addressed below, such as child custody and visitation, are not in issue on appeal. At this juncture, the principal controverted issue is the trial court’s determination that the Berg property and the associated bank accounts are not community property. In that regard, the evidence at trial established: Husband’s sister, Josefa, had a catering business. In 2005, she was faced with a lawsuit by an injured employee. Josefa was concerned that if a judgment were to be rendered against her, it would affect her personal residence, which was her only asset. Therefore, Josefa and her brother, i.e., husband, agreed that Josefa would convey Berg to husband in the form of a sale. At the time of the transaction, Berg had a fair market value of $505,000 and Josefa owed $320,000 on the property, which meant she had $185,000 in equity. Husband told wife that he would be holding Berg “in trust” for his sister. Wife was opposed to the transaction and asked not to be on the Berg title. Likewise, husband did not want wife to be on title to Berg because it would be his “sole property” and he wanted to protect himself in the event of a divorce. Over the years, husband and wife had marital difficulties and had been separated at various times.