Wasserman v. Wizgan CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 2022 No. B314205Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment against the defendants, holding that their failure to provide a record of the trial proceedings required the court to presume the evidence supported the judgment and that the defendants failed to demonstrate legal error regarding the money judgment or equitable relief.

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence in the absence of a reporter's transcript.
Whether the trial court erred by entering a money judgment under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
Whether the judgment should be set aside on equitable grounds due to pending conservatorship petitions.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that “judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown.”

“Because the Wizgans failed to provide a record of the trial testimony, we must presume it supports the judgment.”

“Because the Wizgans were the first transferees of the asset, Wasserman could obtain a money judgment against them under the UVTA.”

Filed 12/22/22 Wasserman v. Wizgan CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

BRUCE WASSERMAN, B314205

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19BBCV00464 v.

RAANAN WIZGAN et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William D. Stewart, Judge. Affirmed.

Klass, Helman & Ross and Robert M. Ross for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Halil Hasic and Marc J. Gedeon for Defendants and Appellants. _________________________

Bruce Wasserman sued Felix and Jacqueline Wizgan (the Wizgans), alleging their son fraudulently transferred stock to them in order to avoid a judgment. The Wizgans failed to appear at trial, and the court entered judgment in Wasserman’s favor. On appeal, the Wizgans argue the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, the court erred by entering a money judgment, and the judgment should be set aside on equitable grounds. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2017, Wasserman obtained a $73,865.87 money judgment against Raanan Wizgan. While attempting to collect the judgment, Wasserman discovered that Raanan had transferred his interest in his company—Truepriced—to his parents, Felix and Jacqueline Wizgan. Wasserman filed a complaint against the Wizgans seeking to set aside the transfer, which he alleged was done to hinder, delay, or defraud him as Raanan’s creditor. The case proceeded to a court trial, which began on March 8, 2021. The Wizgans did not appear at trial. Wasserman presented 25 exhibits, which the court admitted into evidence. The exhibits included documents showing Raanan formed Truepriced in 2015 and transferred his interest in the company to his parents in 2018. Wasserman also submitted numerous financial records for Truepriced. In addition to the exhibits, Wasserman presented testimony from two witnesses. The Wizgans did not include in the appellate record a reporter’s transcript of the trial or a statement summarizing it, so we do not have the witness testimony in front of us. According to Wasserman, one of his witnesses was an expert who testified that Truepriced had a

Wasserman v. Wizgan CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BRUCE WASSERMAN, B314205

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

EDMON, P. J.

AI Brief