Marriage of Ip and Steiner CA3

Filed 8/25/25 Marriage of Ip and Steiner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

In re the Marriage of NIKA IP C102739 and MAX STEINER.

NIKA IP, (Super. Ct. No. 23FL00250)

Respondent,

v.

MAX STEINER,

Appellant.

In this marital dissolution action, Max Steiner (husband) appeals the trial court’s allocation of property between himself and his former spouse, Nika Ip (wife). Because husband fails to meet his affirmative burden to show reversible error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Wife filed a petition for marital dissolution after six years of marriage to husband. The parties disputed how the court should account for the following: (1) wife’s employment-based restricted stock units (stock units); (2) an investment account that

1

husband opened with his separate property (the investment account); and (3) the funding of wife’s graduate education. Both parties testified at trial, but there is no reporter’s transcript of the proceedings. Husband offered four exhibits at trial. Three of those exhibits were admitted into evidence, but none appear in the record on appeal. According to the minute order: the parties stipulated that husband was entitled to a certain dollar amount of the stock units; husband failed to meet his burden of proof; wife’s testimony was credible on all disputes; and “all educational expenses [were] ‘a wash.’ ” Wife’s counsel prepared a proposed statement of decision that the trial court adopted. According to the statement, husband’s testimony was “far less creditable than [wife’s] testimony on all issues necessary for the statement of decision”; husband’s “evidence and arguments were not persuasive”; “the parties agreed to the division of proceeds for the first and second tranche of the [stock units]”; any future stock units from wife’s employer were wife’s separate property because wife would earn them for “post separation work and continued employment”; the investment account consisted of commingled funds, and husband failed to meet his burden of tracing growth in the account to his separate property; and “both parties obtained graduate degrees that were paid for by either the community or separate property of the other spouse,” “the other spouse and/or community received the benefits from such higher degrees,” and any credits for education expenses would offset each other. A dissolution judgment was entered on October 30, 2024. Husband timely appeals and represents himself.1