Marriage of Williams CA5

California Court of Appeal May 16, 2022 No. F080401Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment ordering an equalization payment, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy because it was not listed or provided for in his Chapter 13 plan.

Issues

Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to order an equalization payment following the appellant's Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In view of the record, we conclude Husband failed to establish that the superior court committed an error that justifies reversal of the October 8, 2019 judgment.”

“An unlisted debt is not one provided for by the plan.”

“However, there is no mention of any property settlement payments owed to Wife.”

Filed 5/16/22 Marriage of Williams CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of WINSTON W. and GUADALUPE C. WILLIAMS.

WINSTON W. WILLIAMS, F080401

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 05FL0401)

v. OPINION GUADALUPE CAPOZZI,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Robert S. Burns, Judge. Winston W. Williams, in pro. per., for Appellant. Guadalupe Capozzi, in pro. per., for Respondent. -ooOoo-

This is an appeal from an October 8, 2019 judgment of the Kings County Superior Court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND1 Appellant Winston W. Williams (Husband) and respondent Guadalupe C. Williams (Wife)2 separated on February 1, 2005. Their marriage terminated on June 19, 2006. In a judgment on reserved issues filed on March 17, 2008, the superior court ordered the parties to sell their marital residence in Hanford (Hanford residence), which was valued at $470,000 as of January 26, 2007. The court further ordered that—upon sale of the Hanford residence—the net proceeds “will be divided pursuant to [certain] credits and charges set forth” in the judgment. In a “FINDINGS AND ORDER AFTER HEARING” filed on June 4, 2009, the court ordered that Husband be given possession of the Hanford residence. The court further ordered that (1) Husband “shall maintain all debts relating to the real property”; (2) the Hanford residence “shall be listed for sale with a real estate broker”; (3) “both parties shall cooperate with the sale”; (4) Husband “shall take steps to become prequalified to purchase the property”; and (5) Husband “shall have the right to purchase the property for an amount equal to any legitimate purchase offer.” (Capitalization omitted.) Husband filed for a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on March 18, 2010. A Chapter 13 plan was confirmed on May 14, 2010. The case was completed on March 5, 2015. The United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, issued a “DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR AFTER COMPLETION OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN” dated June 26, 2015. It read:

Marriage of Williams CA5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

WINSTON W. WILLIAMS, F080401

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FRANSON, J.

MEEHAN, J.

AI Brief