Marriage of Lin CA2/3

Filed 10/13/23 Marriage of Lin CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

B318749

In re Marriage of JIAN CHENG (Los Angeles County LIN and GERRI LIN. Super. Ct. Nos. BD569990, KC065922)

JIAN CHENG LIN,

Respondent,

v.

GERRI LIN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Christine Byrd, Judge. Affirmed. Gerri Lin, in pro. per., for Appellant. Jian Cheng Lin, in pro. per., for Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Gerri Lin appeals from a trial court judgment entered following contested marital dissolution proceedings. Lin has failed to demonstrate trial court error, therefore we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2012, Jian Cheng Lin filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage to Gerri Lin.1 In October 2016, the trial court entered a judgment as to status only, reserving jurisdiction over remaining contested issues. In August 2021, the court presided over a trial on the reserved issues and issued a judgment in December 2021. An attachment to the trial court judgment summarized the proceedings and detailed the court’s rulings. We quote from the attachment at length: “Trial was held on the following issues . . . [¶] 1.5.1. Identification, characterization, and division of community property and debt; [¶] 1.5.2. Respondent’s request for spousal Support; [¶] 1.5.3. Respondent’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty against Petitioner; and [¶] 1.5.4. Respondent’s request for attorney’s fees. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] 2.1. The court heard and considered all testimony presented, all exhibits admitted into evidence, and determined the credibility of each of the witnesses, taking into consideration their demeanor and the other matters identified in Evidence Code §§ [412], 413, 780, and related sections. . . . [¶] 2.2. With respect to credibility, the Court found Petitioner [Jian Cheng] to be a credible witness but found Respondent [Gerri] not to be a credible witness.” The trial court listed several examples of the behavior that led to the court’s credibility findings, including Gerri’s false