In re Marriage of Nassimi

Bad Law
207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 764·3 Cal. App. 5th 667
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 2016B259704, B260574California12,865 words

Opinion

Opinion

Manella, J.

Appellant Shary Nassimi, formerly married to respondent Esther Nassimi, contends the trial court erred in concluding that he, alone, was financially responsible for defending and settling a claim brought by a third party seeking, among other things, rescission of an agreement to sell the business he owned and operated during the marriage. We conclude the liability arising from the claim for rescission and other relief initiated by the third party was a community obligation omitted from the marital dissolution judgment that divided the couple’s assets and obligations, subject to division under Family Code section 2556. We find, therefore, that respondent was obligated to pay half the cost of settling the litigation and reverse the court’s order to the extent it denied appellant this relief.

With respect to the costs and attorney fees appellant incurred prior to the settlement, appellant’s litigation expenses included the cost of his unsuccessful pursuit of certain counterclaims. The expense of pursuing those claims was allocated to him by the judgment, and appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to enable the trial court to distinguish fees and costs potentially…

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.