Marriage of Alamshahi CA3

Filed 9/13/22 Marriage of Alamshahi CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re the Marriage of SYED and ZEADA C094347 ALAMSHAHI.

SYED ALAMSHAHI, (Super. Ct. No. STAFLDWC20180002963) Respondent,

v.

ZEADA ALAMSHAHI,

Appellant.

Zeada Alamshahi (appellant) appeals from a trial court judgment of dissolution, specifically the trial court’s determination that an interspousal transfer deed from Syed Alamshahi (respondent) granting appellant a house acquired during the marriage as her sole and separate property was not a valid transmutation and thus the residence was community property. We find substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s decision and affirm the judgment.

1

I BACKGROUND The parties were married on October 16, 1999. On May 29, 2018, respondent filed a marital dissolution petition alleging the date of their separation to be May 14, 2018. On September 5, 2018, appellant filed her own dissolution action, alleging the same dates of marriage and separation. A. Trial At trial, appellant testified that she met respondent through a friend in March 1999. Respondent met with appellant’s family at their house to propose marriage to appellant. Her father, mother, sisters, and brother were present. The conversation took place in the living room and was mostly with her father. Respondent promised to give appellant a house for a dowry after they were married. Appellant and respondent were engaged in June 1999. The dowry proposal had already been made and agreed upon. They had an American marriage ceremony in October 1999 and an Afghani Muslim ceremony in November 1999 on Thanksgiving. At the November ceremony, appellant’s brother was her representative to discuss the dowry. In a Muslim marriage, the marriage certificate normally includes the dowry agreement. Appellant looked for the dowry agreement but could not find it. Appellant testified that in 2000 she purchased a home in Tracy for a down payment of $60,000. Appellant denied that she borrowed money from her sister-in-law for the down payment and stated the down payment was “[a] gift from my dowry.” Appellant testified that only her income was considered in qualifying for a loan to buy the property. Appellant said she was making $2,000 a month working at Target as a supervisor and she also worked with her father in his upholstery business. Appellant testified that the monthly mortgage payment was “1,100 something.” Appellant testified that respondent signed the deed stating that the house belonged to appellant as a gift to her. He did not sign the loan documents for the house because he