Marriage of Rahimi CA3

Filed 8/31/23 Marriage of Rahimi CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

In re the Marriage of STORAY and ARYAN C097062 RAHIMI.

STORAY RAHIMI, (Super. Ct. No. FL2020816)

Respondent,

v.

ARYAN RAHIMI,

Appellant.

This is a marital dissolution case between appellant Aryan Rahimi (husband) and respondent Storay Rahimi (wife). On appeal, husband challenges the trial court’s judgment dividing community property and awarding spousal support. He further contends that the trial court was biased against him. We find no error and affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Husband has elected to proceed with only the clerk’s transcript. We establish from this limited record that the parties were married in 2004 and separated in 2020. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a judgment on reserved issues determining child custody and visitation, child support, spousal support, and division of property. The trial court awarded husband the following community property assets: 25 percent of the value of the marital home; 100 percent of the properties owned by husband in Afghanistan, which the trial court valued at $360,000; and 50 percent of any jewelry existing at the time of separation. The trial court further ordered husband to pay $480 per month in spousal support from September 2022 to August 2032. In dividing the community property, the trial court considered “the economic misconduct of the Husband.” It stated in the judgment: “Based on evidence and testimony presented during the Trial, and the Court’s determination of the credibility of that testimony, the Court believes Husband has been hiding and misusing community assets and finds that he has breached his fiduciary duty to his spouse. The evidence shows that Husband violated the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders found on the Summons . . . . He has transferred, concealed, and disposed of community property without consent of the spouse and without order of the Court. Husband’s economic misconduct has been to the detriment of Wife. The Court believes this misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty warrants any inequality in the division of the community and quasi-community property in Wife’s benefit.” In determining the duration and amount of spousal support, the trial court noted the parties lived an upper middle class lifestyle during marriage; husband had perpetrated domestic violence; wife needed more support and training to obtain marketable skills and was unable to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage; wife was primarily responsible for the care of the parties’ children and domestic duties; husband