Marriage of Pham-Held and Held CA4/3

Filed 10/30/14 Marriage of Pham-Held and Held CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of MONGTHU PHAM- HELD and DRU D. HELD.

MONGTHU PHAM-HELD, G048307 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 06D006569) v. OPINION DRU D. HELD,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Renee E. Wilson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Mongthu Pham-Held, in pro. per.; The Tu Firm and Hoang Huy Tu for Appellant. Law Office of N.R. Bauer, Nene R. Bauer; Law Office of Thomas Armstrong and Thomas Armstrong for Respondent.

* * *

Mongthu Pham-Held (wife) appeals from a judgment of dissolution entered in February 2013 giving her the family residence (house). She contends the family court erroneously valued the house as of the date she purchased Dru D. Held’s (husband) share in August 2006, instead of at the time of trial in March 2012. According to wife, the court abused its discretion when it “barred” her from giving her opinion regarding the value of the house at the time of trial. But because this claim is not supported by the record, which contains no evidence of the value of the house other than at the time of the buyout, no abuse of discretion occurred and the judgment is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A few months after marrying in February 2003, the parties jointly purchased the house with each paying an equal amount. They separated in June 2006 and husband moved out of the house. The parties agreed wife would purchase husband’s share of the house. In August 2006, husband signed an interspousal transfer grant deed giving wife sole title to the house. The deed was recorded the next month. The trial court set the matter for an eight-hour trial in May 2012 regarding the disposition of the house. Under a stipulation and order, wife was to provide husband with, among other things, an appraisal of the residence. She did not do so. Wife attempted to introduce an appraisal report from September 2011 that would purportedly show the house was then worth $1.45 million. But because the person who wrote the report did not testify, the court deemed the document to be hearsay and ruled it did not qualify as a business record. Wife testified the value of the house at the time of escrow in 2006 was $1.9 million. Husband assessed the house as then being worth slightly more, $1,967,000, which was also the agreed upon amount for the buyout. Wife’s forensic accountant –