Marriage of Namba and Yoo CA2/2
Filed 6/28/22 Marriage of Namba and Yoo CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re Marriage of B309934 MICHAEL M. NAMBA and JENNY I. YOO. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BD632254)
MICHAEL M. NAMBA,
Respondent,
v.
JENNY I. YOO,
Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shelley Kaufman, Judge. Affirmed.
Moon & Dorsett and Dana M. Dorsett for Appellant.
Law Offices of Robert Gantman and Robert J. Gantman for Respondent. ______________________________
Appellant Jenny I. Yoo (Yoo) appeals from the denial of her request for an order seeking the postjudgment division of an omitted asset in this marital dissolution case. Because Yoo has not established the existence of an omitted asset, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Yoo and respondent Michael M. Namba (Namba) were married in 2006. In August 2013, Namba became a cotrustee—along with his parents, Katsutoshi Namba and Chizuko Namba—of the Katsu Namba Family Trust (trust). As a cotrustee, Namba was entitled to trustee compensation. Namba chose not to be paid for his services as cotrustee. Namba filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in December 2015. Yoo and Namba separated on May 1, 2016. The family court entered a judgment of dissolution on March 5, 2019. The judgment incorporated a spousal support order stating: “[Namba] helps manage his parents [sic] trust and is entitled to be paid, but chooses not to be paid for his services.” The court considered this factor in determining spousal support. On October 9, 2019, Yoo filed a request for order seeking the postjudgment division of an omitted asset. Specifically, Yoo sought 100 percent of the “earned” trustee compensation from the trust “owed to [Namba] for his work from 2013 through May 1, 2016” and interest.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)