Marriage of Yang CA4/1

Filed 6/26/24 Marriage of Yang 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 JACK and JACQUELINE YANG. D081122 JACK C. YANG,

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. D564588)

v.

MINH-THU N. HUYNH,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed. The Appellate Law Firm, Aaron Myers and Mark Kuntze for Appellant. Higgs Fletcher & Mack, John Morris and Steven M. Brunolli for Respondent.

Jack C. Yang filed a petition in 2016 seeking to divorce Minh-Thu N. Huynh. In bifurcated proceedings, the court first dissolved the marriage and

later divided the couple’s community property. The division of assets required Huynh to make an equalization payment to Yang. When Huynh did not make the required payment, Yang moved to compel the sale of two parcels of real property to satisfy the judgment. After a series of delays, the court ordered Huynh to sell the two properties to satisfy the judgment. Huynh appeals this order, asserting several reasons why the court abused its discretion in ordering the sale. As we explain below, we reject each of her contentions and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At the time of their divorce, the couple owned two homes, the family residence and a rental property. Huynh requested that both properties be awarded to her, and the court agreed. Pursuant to an oral ruling in July 2021 that was incorporated in a judgment entered in December of that year, Huynh was directed to make an equalization payment to Yang totaling $1,844,079. The court also ordered a second equalization payment of $435,000 for community property funds Huynh moved out of a shared account. In addition to the equalization payments, Huynh was required to pay Yang $100,000 in attorney fees and a sanction of $20,000. In total, the court ordered Huynh to pay Yang a cash total of $2,502,734. To facilitate that payment, the court permitted Huynh to “refinance the propert[ies], if she chooses to” or to sell the properties. Of course, Huynh was not required to either refinance the homes or sell them if she had another source of the money to satisfy the court’s judgment. “But, at this point, ” the judge told her, “the only path forward for you to come up with the 2.5 million, unless you have some other source and can get a cashier’s check over to [Yang’s attorney], is the homes are sold.” If, within 60 days of the entry of judgment, Huynh was “in the process of refinancing without any anticipated