Rathee v. Marek CA2/8

Filed 11/22/13 Rathee v. Marek CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

NEETA RATHEE, B244400

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 430741) v.

LEE MAREK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michelle R. Rosenblatt, Judge. Judgment affirmed; order reversed.

Law Offices of Edward M. Bialack and Edward M. Bialack for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Office of Edward S. Orchon and Edward S. Orchon for Defendant and Appellant.

******

Defendant Lee Marek admits that he owes plaintiff Neeta Rathee $167,000. Nevertheless he challenges the judgment awarding Rathee that amount, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired before Rathee filed her lawsuit. We conclude Marek failed to show that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and therefore affirm the judgment in favor of Rathee. Rathee cross-appeals, challenging the amount of the prejudgment interest awarded by the trial court. We conclude that Rathee was entitled to prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent from the date she filed her complaint until the date of judgment. FACTS Neeta Rathee and Vikram Singh married in 1989, separated in 2004, and concluded their dissolution proceedings in 2010. While Rathee and Singh were married, Singh, a physician, gave community funds to Lee Marek to invest in surgical centers. The funds were given either in 2000 (according to Marek) or in 2004 (according to Singh). The funds Marek owed the community were awarded to Rathee as her sole and separate property at the conclusion of the dissolution proceeding in approximately July 2010. Marek testified at trial and acknowledged the debt. According to Marek, Singh gave him $467,000, and Marek returned $300,000 leaving a balance of $167,000. Marek admitted he converted the $167,000 to his personal use, and Marek testified that he spent the Rathee/Singh community funds on his rent and car payments instead of investing the money in surgical centers. Marek understood he was obligated to return the money. In addition to his trial testimony, Marek previously admitted converting the funds to his personal use. On July 20, 2004, Marek wrote Singh a letter stating: “The funds totaling $167,000 that you have sent to me for the investments in the various surgery centers have been used by me for my personal use as per our agreement. [¶] I presently do not have the funds to pay back to you as you are requesting. Instead, I suggest that I pay to you the funds amortized over ten years at 7% per annum interest. [¶] Since I am