Vinuya v. Vinuya CA2/1

Filed 11/21/25 Vinuya v. Vinuya CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ALICIA VINUYA, B342367

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KD079805) v.

FRANCIS AGUSTIN VINUYA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sheryl M. Beasley, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed. Francis Agustin Vinuya, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Francis Agustin Vinuya (Mr. Vinuya) appeals in propria persona from the denial of a request for order and subsequent motion for reconsideration concerning distribution of assets from the retirement plan of his deceased ex-wife Alicia Vinuya (Mrs. Vinuya). There is no appearance by respondent. We affirm by memorandum disposition. Mr. and Mrs. Vinuya married in 1984. On November 3, 2011, the family law court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage. The court ordered spousal support and property division according to a settlement agreement reached by the parties. The settlement identified a “Prudential Cigna 401k” belonging to Mrs. Vinuya. The settlement provided that Mrs. Vinuya would release $17,500 from her “Prudential Retirement Account” to Mr. Vinuya, after which neither party “shall retain, nor possess, any access, rights nor interest in the/any retirement accounts of the other spouse after the signing and execution of this Agreement.” According to filings by Mr. Vinuya in the family law court and his brief on appeal, Mrs. Vinuya subsequently married Manuel Tayag, and later died. According to Mr. Vinuya, Tayag administered Mrs. Vinuya’s estate, and began receiving benefits from Mrs. Vinuya’s retirement plan or plans. On August 13, 2024, the family law court held a hearing on a request for order filed by Mr. Vinuya. The record on appeal does not contain the request for order, any documents filed in support or opposition, or a reporter’s transcript of the hearing, although a court reporter was present. According to the court’s minute order, the hearing was an “Evidentiary Hearing re: