Marriage of Abedian CA6

Filed 11/3/21 Marriage of Abedian CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of BRUCE H046399 (BEHROOZ) ABEDIAN and AFSAR (Santa Clara County ABEDIAN. Super. Ct. No. 2014-6-FL012226)

BRUCE (BEHROOZ) ABEDIAN,

Appellant,

v.

AFSAR ABEDIAN,

Respondent.

Appellant Bruce Abedian raises three issues in his appeal from the trial court’s orders in this dissolution of marriage action between Bruce and respondent Afsar Abedian. He claims that the court (1) miscalculated the amount Afsar owed him for her post-separation exclusive use of the couple’s residence, (2) erred in awarding Afsar her share of the net post-separation rent collected by Bruce for the couple’s commercial property, and (3) wrongly required him to reimburse Afsar for post-separation credit card charges that he made on her credit card. Afsar moves for sanctions on the ground that Bruce’s appeal is not only without merit but frivolous. Although we find the appeal meritless, we do not find it wholly frivolous. Thus, we affirm the judgment but deny the sanctions motion.

I. BACKGROUND Bruce and Afsar separated on August 1, 2011 after over 30 years of marriage. Bruce and Afsar jointly owned a residence and a commercial rental property. Bruce moved out of their residence when they separated, but he moved back in on November 17, 2013 “against [Afsar’s] wishes.” While he lived at the residence, Afsar paid for his food, provided him with healthcare insurance, and paid all of the household expenses, including his cell phone bill. Bruce retired in January 2014; Afsar continued to work as a nurse. In March 2014, Bruce, who was then 72 years old, filed a petition for legal separation and requested temporary spousal support. His March 2014 income and expense declaration reported that he had net income of $1,200 a month from the commercial rental property and social security income of approximately $1,000 a month. He claimed expenses of $5,483 per month, which included $2,500 a month in purported rent. At the July 2014 hearing on temporary spousal support, Afsar contended that Bruce was entitled to only $3,040 per month in temporary spousal support. However, the court determined that Bruce, who was still living in the residence, was entitled to $4,199 a month in temporary spousal support. The court made this determination based on a Dissomaster printout that used Bruce’s reported $2,209 a month in income. The temporary spousal support order was retroactive to April 1, 2014, but the court reserved jurisdiction to modify the order. In May 2015, Afsar responded to Bruce’s petition with a request for dissolution of the marriage, and she sought spousal support. In June 2017, the parties entered into a stipulation resolving many issues. Among other things, Afsar agreed to pay Bruce an equalizing payment of $506,846.27 within 90 days. Upon doing so, she would receive the residence, and he would receive the commercial property. It appears that the real property transfers were accomplished at the end of January 2018.