Gilmore Bank v. Dalrymple CA4/3

facts in their opening brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) And, in any event, abundant substantial evidence supports the court’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s order.

1 For ease of reference and to avoid confusion, we sometimes refer to Cindy Dalrymple and her niece, Sonia Jolene Dalrymple, by their first names. We intend no disrespect. 2 The court’s order also froze defendants’ assets (except for scheduled disbursements for Cindy’s living expenses), and restrained defendants from transferring any real or personal property held or controlled by them or their agents or trustees. Defendants do not challenge these parts of the order. The court’s order is appealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(6). All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated.

2

FACTS

The Underlying Judgment and Cindy’s Initial Transfers of Her Assets In 1992, Cindy and her partner formed a company named Alliance Technology, Inc. (ATI), to make electrical components for Aviza. Thus, Aviza was always ATI’s primary customer. In 2000, Cindy became the sole owner of ATI. In a December 2006 meeting with Cindy,…