Goldberg

Goldberg v. Stelmach CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 22, 2016B250524California1,930 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

BACKGROUND

Lea and Shlomo Goldberg invested in various business ventures with their daughter, Taly Stelmach, and her husband, Yuval Stelmach. Problems in the Goldbergs’ marriage created problems in the “family enterprise,” culminating in Shlomo Goldberg suing the Stelmachs and various business entities in 2003. (Goldberg v. Stelmach (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2006, No. LC066042) (Goldberg I.).) In that prior suit, Goldberg contended that investments belonged to him, to the exclusion of his wife. Goldberg I rejected that contention and held that Goldberg and Lea each had a one-half interest in their investments with the Stelmachs. Thus, for example, the Goldbergs had a 15 percent interest in Tul Investments, which owned a property in Glendora. The Goldbergs’ 15 percent interest from the sale of the Glendora property, $418,779, was therefore to be divided equally between the Goldbergs. But, after Goldberg I concluded, Sholmo Goldberg filed this lawsuit in August 2006. He alleged, for example, that the Stelmach defendants violated their fiduciary duties by failing to distribute Goldberg’s interest to him. For reasons irrelevant to this appeal, demurrers were sustained without leave to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.