Marriage of Sattler CA2/1

Filed 3/27/14 Marriage of Sattler CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re the Marriage of B244799 GIOVANNA and FELIPE ALEXANDER SATTLER, (Los Angeles County ___________________________________ Super. Ct. No. LD054411)

GIOVANNA SATTLER,

Respondent, v.

FELIPE ALEXANDER SATTLER,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Christine C. Ewell, Judge. Affirmed. ______ Jesus Zelada for Appellant Felipe Alexander Sattler. No appearance for Respondent Giovanna Sattler. ______

Felipe Sattler appeals from the final judgment in this action dissolving his marriage to Giovanna Sattler.1 Felipe argues that the superior court’s division of the marital property was erroneous in certain respects. We affirm. The issues of child custody and visitation, child support, spousal support, property, debt, reimbursements, attorney fees, and costs were tried to the court over five days. On appeal, Felipe has elected to proceed without a reporter’s transcript, so we have no record of any oral proceedings. Felipe’s first argument relates to the values of certain vehicles. The trial court’s statement of decision addresses the status of seven automobiles owned by the parties either separately or as community property. The court awarded five of the seven vehicles to Felipe. The court awarded the two remaining vehicles, a Chevy Aveo and a Kia Rio, to Giovanna, concluding that they were her separate property. Giovanna testified that the current value of the Aveo was $6,672 and the current value of the Rio was $4,753, and the court expressly found her testimony credible. On the basis of Felipe’s representation that “both of these vehicles had been sold,” the court ordered Felipe to pay Giovanna $6,672 and $4,753 as reimbursement for his having sold her separate property vehicles without her permission. On appeal, Felipe argues that the court’s determination of the value of the Aveo and the Rio was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Substantial evidence may consist of the testimony of a single witness (In re Marriage of Birnbaum (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1508, 1513), and we defer to the superior court’s credibility determinations (In re Marriage of Hill & Dittmer (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1051-1052). Felipe concedes that neither party submitted any documentary evidence of the values of the vehicles, that Giovanna testified to the values found by the court, and that the court expressly found her credible. We accordingly conclude that the court’s