Marriage of Landge and Ahir CA1/5

Filed 12/23/25 Marriage of Landge and Ahir CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re the Marriage of NAMRATA LANDGE and SHREYAS AHIR.

NAMRATA LANDGE, A171229 Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF18912753) SHREYAS AHIR, Appellant.

In the second appeal in this dissolution action, Shreyas Ahir (Husband)1 appeals the trial court’s judgment on remand. We affirm. BACKGROUND2 We quote as relevant from our prior opinion in this case: “Husband and respondent Namrata Landge (Wife) married in December 2013. In October

1 We recognize the marriage was terminated years ago in a bifurcated

proceeding. Purely for convenience, we will use the terms “Husband” and “Wife.” 2 We grant Husband’s unopposed April 22, 2025 request for judicial

notice of filings in the prior appeal.

1

2014, the marital residence was purchased. The down payment was paid with $74,496 of Husband’s separate property. The deed was in Husband’s name only . . . . [¶] Wife filed for divorce in July 2018. The marital status was bifurcated from the division of property, and the marriage was terminated in December 2019. [¶] A trial on reserved issues, including the characterization of the marital residence, was held in September 2021. The trial court ruled the home was presumptively community property because it was purchased during the marriage . . . . The court divided the approximate equity in the home between the parties, with reimbursement to Husband for his $74,496 separate property down payment.” (In re Marriage of Landge and Ahir (Oct. 27, 2022, A164150) [nonpub. opn.] (Landge and Ahir).) Husband appealed, challenging solely the court’s determination that he was not entitled to appreciation traceable to his separate property contribution. (Landge and Ahir, supra, A164150.) This court reversed, relying on In re Marriage of Bonvino (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1411 (Bonvino), which held that separate property contributions to the purchase of community property were entitled to reimbursement of “ ‘the equity paid from separate property plus the appreciation attributable to separate property.’ ” (Landge and Ahir, supra, A164150, quoting Bonvino, at p. 1427.) In 2023, on remand, trial was held.3 Following trial, the court issued a proposed statement of decision and, after Husband filed objections, a final statement of decision. Judgment issued and Husband appealed.