Marriage of Kaur and Cauldhar CA3

Filed 2/24/26 Marriage of Kaur and Cauldhar 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento)

In re the Marriage of SUMANDEEP KAUR and DESRAJ CAULDHAR.

SUMANDEEP KAUR, C102596

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FL01668)

v.

DESRAJ CAULDHAR,

Appellant.

In this marital dissolution proceeding, Desraj Cauldhar (Husband) appeals from a trial court order dividing marital property. Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to adequately consider the evidence and made findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. Based on the limited record on appeal, which does not include a statement of decision or a reporter’s transcript, we conclude that

1

Husband has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating reversible error and therefore affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal arises from an order determining the division of property in a marital dissolution action. The primary issue between the parties concerned a retail convenience store business and whether Husband breached a fiduciary duty to his wife, Sumandeep Kaur (Wife), when he transferred ownership of the business to a third party. Another contested issue related to whether Wife breached her fiduciary duties to Husband by transferring community funds to India and/or absconding with funds kept at the family residence. After a bench trial, the trial court issued its “Findings and Order After Hearing.” (Some capitalization omitted.) Regarding the retail convenience store business, the trial court found that the business was a community asset with a net value of $396,090. The court found that Husband breached his fiduciary duty to Wife by transferring the business to a third party for inadequate consideration without Wife’s knowledge. The court also found that Husband breached his fiduciary duty by diverting the proceeds of a loan issued to the business and then misrepresenting to Wife that the funds were used for the business. In reaching these findings, the court credited the evidence offered by Wife and found the testimony and documentary evidence presented by Husband not credible. Regarding Husband’s accusations against Wife, the trial court found that Wife breached her fiduciary duties to Husband by transferring $41,792 in community funds to India. However, the court rejected Husband’s claim that Wife absconded with $12,000 in funds allegedly kept at the family residence. Based on the foregoing, the trial court awarded the marital residence (with a stipulated net value of $175,265) to Wife, assigned the full value of the retail convenience store business (including the diverted loan proceeds) to Husband, and ordered Husband to