Marriage of Gutierrez

Filed 5/6/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re the Marriage of MAYELA B291507 and ALBERTO GUTIERREZ. ______________________________ (Los Angeles County MAYELA GUTIERREZ, Super. Ct. No. BD473221)

Respondent,

v.

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Frederick C. Shaller, Judge. Affirmed. Holstrom, Block & Parke and Ronald B. Funk for Appellant. C. Athena Roussos for Respondent. ____________________

Father makes four appellate complaints about the family court’s division of marital property. First, from the value of the home awarded to Mother, the court subtracted $171,099, which was the balance outstanding on a home equity credit line. Father objects, saying his two witnesses testified the lender wrote off the loan, leaving a balance of zero, not $171,099. Second, the court sanctioned Father for failing to make proper disclosures about a different house. Father claims error because the court made no finding Mother was unaware of this other house. Third, Father argues the court misinterpreted a 2008 court order to sell a third property. The error, Father argues, was to read the order as requiring him to act swiftly. Fourth, Father complains about treatment of a Jeep, tools, an all-terrain vehicle, and his watch. We affirm. Citations are to the Family Code. I The parties are Mayela Gutierrez and Alberto Gutierrez. We refer to them as Mother and Father to be concise and respectful. The trial court’s encyclopedic 69-page statement of decision is a model of clarity and an emblem of judicial diligence. This ruling reports Mother and Father married in 2001, had two children, and separated in 2008. We add more facts as they become pertinent. II We treat the four issues in turn.

2

A The first issue concerns house valuation. The question is whether the court was right to subtract the outstanding balance of a loan on a house. This boils down to whether the court could reject two of Father’s witnesses as unreliable. We defer to the family court’s credibility call. The particular debate was whether Mother still owed money on a home equity line of credit. The family court said yes, in the sum of $171,099. The court therefore subtracted that sum from the value of the house the court had awarded to Mother. Father says this was error because the lender had written off the loan entirely and the court should not have used this reason to reduce the house value at all. This dispute is purely factual. Father agrees we must review for substantial evidence, which he rightly says is, “indeed, a heavily deferential standard of review . . . .” We recount some factual context. The house is the former family residence in Hacienda Heights. In 2006, the couple borrowed about $204,000 on this house from Washington Mutual. The lender recorded a deed of trust on this loan in 2006. When the couple separated in May 2008, Mother and the children stayed in the Hacienda Heights house. The value of the home dropped and Mother tried to modify the terms of the mortgage and the line of credit. Then Mother stopped all loan payments. Chase Bank took over both Washington Mutual and, with it, the Hacienda Heights loan. A collection agency then took over the loan and demanded Mother pay $170,000 to pay it off. Mother lacked the money. Late payments and penalties drove the balance up to $230,000.