Vanesyan v. Aperian CA2/5

Filed 3/27/26 Vanesyan v. Aperian CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LARISA VANESYAN, B344655

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD541888) v.

MAXIM APERIAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jeffrey W. Korn, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed. Law Offices of Cynthia A. de Petris and Cynthia A. de Petris for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Maxim Aperian (Maxim) appeals from an order denying his request for order (RFO)1 terminating a provision of an earlier judgment of dissolution that assigned his pension plan and account plan to his former wife Larisa Vanesyan (Larisa). We affirm. II. BACKGROUND

A. Dissolution Judgment

Maxim and Larisa were married on October 18, 1996, and had two children together. On March 28, 2011, Larisa petitioned for divorce. On August 23, 2013, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. Among other things, the trial court found that Maxim had absconded with $100,000 in community property funds and refused an earlier order to repay the absconded amount plus interest. At the time of the dissolution, Maxim had interests in a motion picture industry individual account plan and motion picture industry pension plan (the Plans). The trial court awarded Larisa the total value of the Plans. The court explained that “[t]he total value of the two plans is $125,143 plus or minus changes in the value after the date of separation. [Larisa] is