Marriage of Panzer CA2/ 7

Filed 5/7/14 Marriage of Panzer CA2/ 7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re the Marriage of MICHIYO and B245693 ERNEST PANZER. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KD080263) ERNST K. PANZER,

Respondent,

v.

MICHIYO PANZER,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Don Christian, Temporary Judge. Affirmed. Michiyo Panzer, in pro. per., for Appellant. Swati S. Desai and Nisha Dandekar, for Respondent.

_________________________

Appellant appeals the judgment entered in her marital dissolution proceeding, asserting breach of fiduciary duty by her former spouse, and alleging perjury and concealment of assets. Appellant’s claims, however, find no support in the record. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant Michiyo Panzer and respondent Ernst Panzer were married for approximately thirty-five years before Ernst petitioned for dissolution of their marriage.1 Prior to trial, the parties successfully resolved most of the issues, leaving for trial the disposition of the S-Corporation operated by Ernst during the marriage, the valuation of certain gold coins, and the disposition of other, more minor assets. On the day trial was to commence, Michiyo, then representing herself, asserted that Ernst had hidden and failed to disclose assets, specifically profits from the corporation earned during the marriage. The court took testimony from both parties, received exhibits into evidence, and heard closing arguments from Michiyo and Ernst’s counsel. In support of her claims of breach of fiduciary duty, Michiyo presented various checks written by Ernst, and the first page of a series of the couple’s joint tax returns. She presented no other documentation of the claimed undisclosed profits, and the court found no violation of Family Code sections 721 or 1101. The court ordered the disposition of the remaining property; as to the corporation and the coins, the judgment required both to be appraised, sold, and the proceeds divided evenly between the parties. Michiyo timely appealed. DISCUSSION The trial court made the required findings based on the evidence presented at the trial. We review those findings for substantial evidence, considering it in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, resolving all conflicts in favor of that party, and making