Marriage of Palaniyappan and Chartrand-Dumas CA4/3

Filed 8/18/25 Marriage of Palaniyappan and Chartrand-Dumas CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of MUTHATHAL PALANIYAPPAN and MAXIME CHARTRAND-DUMAS.

MUTHATHAL PALANIYAPPAN, G063006 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 19D010105) v. OPINION MAXIME CHARTRAND-DUMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas J. Lo, Judge. Affirmed. Muthathal Palanyiappan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of Alan S. Yockelson, Alan S. Yockelson and Stephen M. Vasil; Law Office of Lauren Mullee and Lauren Mullee for Defendant and Appellant. * * *

This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a postjudgment order in a divorce case between Maxime Chartrand-Dumas (Husband) and Muthathal Palaniyappan (Wife). The trial court found that Husband breached his fiduciary duty by exercising stock options acquired through his employer. Under the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA), Husband had agreed to notify Wife of any exercise and to assist her in making a sound investment decision with her half of the stock options, which were under his control. Not only did Husband fail to provide Wife notice, but he then lied to her when she asked about it. Husband contends no fiduciary duty remained once the MSA assigned the options to Wife as her separate property. We conclude that Husband’s fiduciary duties continued under Family Code section 2102 because the stock options remained in his possession and he agreed to notify Wife of any exercise. By failing to notify her, Husband breached his fiduciary duty. We affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS The parties married on January 24, 2011, and separated on December 17, 2019. A judgment of legal separation was entered on January 29, 2020, incorporating their MSA. The MSA was self-negotiated, with both parties stating that they were self-represented in signing the MSA. Husband was employed at Confluent, Inc., and during the marriage he was awarded stock options. The MSA awarded Wife “50 percent of Maxime’s Confluent stocks” for the first 36 months of vesting and a diminishing portion in the fourth year. The MSA specified that Wife’s share would be “her sole and separate property.” On January 28, 2021, the parties signed a notarized letter agreement that addressed numerous issues related to the parties’ property division, including the stock options. Paragraph 13 provided: “Maxime agreed