Marriage of Hiramanek CA3

Filed 11/29/23 Marriage of Hiramanek CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Santa Clara) ----

In re the Marriage of KAMAL and ADIL C088669/C088712 HIRAMANEK.

KAMAL HIRAMANEK, (Super. Ct. No. 2009-1-FL- 149682) Respondent,

v.

ADIL HIRAMANEK, as Personal Representative, etc.,

Appellant.

This case and others involving Adil Hiramanek and his family members were originally filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Following initial proceedings in the Sixth Appellate District, various appeals, including these two, were transferred to this district. We will refer to the Hiramanek family members by their first names for clarity. Adil was designated a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. (See In re Marriage of Hiramanek (Aug. 23, 2012, H035887) [nonpub. opn.].)1

1 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of this opinion resulting from an appeal that originated from the same superior court action as this appeal. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

1

These appeals arise from a marital dissolution action between wife Kamal and husband Adil in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Roda, now deceased, was Adil’s mother. She was joined as a party in the dissolution action through a complaint in intervention. Roda filed two notices of appeal, and Adil, acting without counsel, is maintaining those appeals as the personal representative of Roda’s estate (the Estate). This court consolidated the two appeals on its own motion; they will be considered together but retain their own case numbers. Although Adil also appealed on his own behalf, we dismissed Adil’s appeals because he lacked standing. Adil and Kamal married in 1998. Kamal filed a petition for dissolution in 2007, but they reconciled in 2008. As part of the reconciliation and dismissal of the dissolution action, Adil and Kamal entered into an agreement that was adopted as an order of the family court in July 2008. Later, in the dissolution action, the family court rejected Roda’s effort to set aside the 2008 agreement (denying the relief she requested in her complaint in intervention), an order that was affirmed by this court. (In re Marriage of Hiramanek (Apr. 17, 2019, C082930) [nonpub. opn.].) However, Roda subsequently asked the family court to declare that she was not bound by the agreement. The family court denied the request, ruling that the request was untimely and that the validity of the agreement had already been determined when the family court denied the relief requested in Roda’s complaint in intervention. In appeal No. C088669, the Estate contends the trial court erred in determining that Roda could not relitigate the validity of the agreement. Soon after her request in the trial court for a declaration that she was not bound by the agreement, Roda sought to enforce the agreement (claiming Kamal interfered with Roda’s grandparent visitation under the agreement) or, in the alternative, to rescind the agreement. The trial court denied the request, finding that the agreement did not affirmatively grant Roda a right to visitation and that Kamal had not violated the agreement. Roda also sought to strike or vacate a restraining order against Adil and in