Marriage of Boyajian and Bi CA5

Filed 11/20/13 Marriage of Boyajian and Bi CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of MICHAEL J. BOYAJIAN and WINNIE BI.

MICHAEL J. BOYAJIAN, F064467

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 477332-1)

v. OPINION WINNIE BI,

Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Glenda Allen- Hill, Judge. Winnie Bi, in pro. per., for Appellant.

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Oakley, J.† †Judge of the Superior Court of Madera County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Michael J. Boyajian, in pro. per., for Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant Winnie Bi, and respondent Michael J. Boyajian, dissolved their marriage in 1993. In the marital settlement agreement, the parties agreed to list their family home for sale within two years. The parties stated their intent was to wait until the home had sufficient equity to justify a sale. Because equity in the home was still insufficient in 1995, the parties entered into a written agreement modifying the dissolution judgment. In June 1995, appellant agreed to deed the property to respondent in exchange for $2,000 and respondent agreed to assume the mortgage loan. Thereafter, a deed transferring appellant’s interest in the home to respondent was recorded and respondent paid appellant $2,000. In July 2011, appellant filed an application for an order to show cause seeking a partition sale of the family home and an order compelling respondent to comply with the dissolution judgment and remove appellant’s name from the loan. However, the parties disagreed on what respondent specifically agreed to do with respect to the loan. Each party presented a different version of the June 1995 agreement to the trial court. The copy produced by respondent states that respondent will use his best effort to assume the loan within a reasonable time. The copy presented by appellant states that respondent will remove appellant from the loan within six months.1 Following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s application. The court found that the parties modified their judgment in writing in June 1995. However, the court did not decide which of the two agreements was correct. Rather, the court ruled that appellant’s challenge to the judgment and/or request to enforce the agreement were