Marriage of Montoya CA2/6

Filed 10/20/15 Marriage of Montoya CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of JANINE and 2d Civil No. B258125 THEODORE MONTOYA. (Super. Ct. No. SD039801) (Ventura County)

JANINE MONTOYA,

Respondent,

v.

THEODORE MONTOYA,

Appellant.

Theodore Montoya appeals a judgment of the family law court determining the value of a community property business as of an alternative valuation date. (Fam. Law, § 2552, subd. (b).)1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 11, 2009, Janine Montoya ("Wife") filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to Theodore Montoya ("Husband"). The Montoyas eventually agreed to a division of community property and an award of spousal support. On April 27, 2012, the family law court entered judgment dissolving the marriage and awarding property and spousal support in accordance with the parties' written settlement. The

1 All further statutory references are to the Family Law Code unless stated otherwise.

court expressly reserved jurisdiction, however, regarding the division of Valley Aire, Inc. ("Valley Aire"), a small heating and air-conditioning business owned and operated by the parties. Prior to their marital separation, Husband and Wife actively managed Valley Aire together. Husband managed construction, installation, sales, suppliers, and subcontractors; Wife managed the administration, marketing, and finances of the business. In April 2012, Rodd Feingold, a certified business broker and certified public accountant, appraised Valley Aire at the parties' request. Feingold later opined that the business was worth between $467,521 and $480,761 as of May 31, 2012. Following entry of judgment, Husband frustrated Wife's efforts to obtain information regarding Valley Aire's financial health. In December 2012, Husband ousted Wife as an employee, officer, and director of Valley Aire and, thereafter, managed the business alone. Husband then transferred assets of Valley Aire to a newly formed business, "Tri County Aire," owned by a former employee of Valley Aire but operated by Husband. On May 5, 2013, Husband filed for bankruptcy, personally and on behalf of Valley Aire. On June 18, 2013, Wife moved for relief from the automatic stay of Husband's personal bankruptcy in order to pursue division of Valley Aire in the family law court. Wife alleged that Husband filed a bankruptcy action to impede division of the business. She also stated that she would not pursue enforcement or collection of any estate asset without permission of the bankruptcy court. Wife pointed out that trial regarding the division of Valley Aire was scheduled and imminent when Husband filed for bankruptcy. On August 14, 2013, the bankruptcy court granted Wife relief from the automatic stay, retroactive to the date Husband filed his personal bankruptcy petition. On November 20, 2013, Wife requested the family law court to order an alternative valuation date for Valley Aire. (§ 2552, subd. (b).) On January 14, 2014, after a brief hearing in which Husband appeared in propria persona, the court granted Wife's request.