Marriage of Kaur and Cauldhar CA3

DISCUSSION

Although not framed as such, Husband’s challenge to the trial court’s decision is, in substance, an attack on the trial court’s findings and the sufficiency of the evidence to support those findings. In particular, Husband contends that the court erred in valuing the retail convenience store business and assigning that value to him. He contends the court failed to consider or give adequate weight to the valuation of the business prepared by Husband’s expert, the business’s tax returns, business meeting minutes, the testimony of Husband and his business partner, and the business loan paperwork. Husband also contends that the trial court erred by undervaluing the amount of money that Wife transferred to India, undervaluing the amount of cash and jewelry remaining at the family residence, ignoring a purported prenuptial agreement executed between Husband and Wife under the laws of India, and ignoring Husband’s contention that the marriage was a fraud because Wife married him solely for money and to gain citizenship. Generally, we review a ruling dividing property under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of Dellaria & Blickman-Dellaria (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th…