Breitman v. Breitman CA2/6

Filed 7/29/15 Breitman v. Breitman CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SHARA BREITMAN, 2d Civil No. B257255 (Super. Ct. No. SD033769) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

GERALD BREITMAN, an Incompetent Person, etc.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Husband appeals an order awarding all insurance policies on husband's life to wife. We affirm. FACTS Shara (wife) and Gerald (husband) Breitman dissolved their marriage in 2007. The parties have an adult child, who is disabled and requires ongoing care and support. The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) in April 2007. The agreement required husband to pay wife spousal support. It also required husband to make wife beneficiary of four specified insurance policies insuring husband's life. The MSA provides the court reserves jurisdiction over any

assets not specifically covered by the agreement and to make further orders to carry out the provisions of the agreement. The court entered judgment on the agreement. In August 2008, husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's type dementia. He moved for a termination of spousal support because he was unable to work. The court terminated husband's obligation to pay spousal support. Eventually, the court ordered wife to pay husband $1,500 per month in support. The parties continued to dispute various matters, including ownership of husband's life insurance policies. The matter came on for trial on March 2, 2012. The court had appointed the Public Guardian as husband's guardian ad litem. County counsel represented husband and the guardian at trial. The court allowed husband's caretaker, Bonnie Cimo, and a representative from the Alzheimer's Association to be present to help him understand the proceedings. Wife appeared with her counsel. The parties waived a court reporter. After some evidence was taken at trial, counsel for each of the parties entered into a stipulation for judgment. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the stipulation. As to husband's life insurance policies, the judgment states: "[A]ll life insurance policies covering the husband are awarded to wife who shall be the owner thereof and pay all premiums thereon." Thereafter, the court relieved the Public Guardian and County Counsel. The court appointed husband's caretaker, Bonnie Cimo, as guardian ad litem. The court denied husband's motion for reconsideration. DISCUSSION I. Husband contends there is no evidence that the parties agreed to transfer ownership of insurance policies covering his life.