Marriage of Adler CA4/1

Filed 7/20/23 Marriage of Adler CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of MARK J. ADLER and YANINA ADLER. ________________________________________ D080116

MARK J. ADLER, (Super. Ct. No. DN181729)

Respondent.

v.

YANINA ODIN,

Appellant,

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patti Ratekin, Commissioner. Affirmed. Yanina Odin, in pro per., for Appellant. Higgs Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, Steven M. Brunoli, and Rachel M. Garrard for Respondent. In this dissolution action, the trial court found the premarital agreement (PMA) signed by Yanina Adler and Mark Adler (together, the parties) was enforceable. Yanina appealed from the subsequent bench trial on reserved issues arguing that the trial court erred in determining her

claims for: (1) reimbursement of income tax payments; (2) recalculation of the benefits paid at the termination of a defined benefit pension plan that the parties created for themselves; and (3) reimbursement of the salary she earned at the parties’ corporation. We concluded the trial court committed a legal error by requiring nontaxable transfers of money between spouses be treated as taxable income in determining whether either party was entitled to reimbursement of income tax payments but otherwise rejected Yanina’s arguments. (Adler v. Superior Court of San Diego County (Apr. 8, 2021,

D075033) [nonpub. opn.] (Adler I).)1 We remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the income tax issue. Yanina represented herself on the remanded issue. The trial court concluded that Yanina had not met her burden of proof and filed a new judgment rejecting this final aspect of her original claim. This appeal followed. Yanina, who continues to represent herself, asserts the trial court