Marriage of Heinsohn and Cherednychenko CA1/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 21, 2021A159594California6,572 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Heinsohn and Cherednychenko married in 2008, and separated in July 2017. Heinsohn petitioned for dissolution of marriage in August 2017. Dubinina is Cherednychenko’s niece. On October 3, 2018, Heinsohn filed a motion for joinder of Dubinina as a third party claimant in the dissolution action. He alleged that she was a necessary and indispensable party to the action because Cherednychenko had transferred certain community assets to Dubinina in an effort to hide them from Heinsohn, and her presence as a party was necessary to prove the fraudulent transfers and to ensure the assets were transferred back to the community. The assets allegedly transferred to Dubinina included real property in Hawaii and earnings from Cherednychenko’s business, a speech and debate school called Young Genius Associates (the debate school or Young Genius).

2All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 4In light of this result, we need not address Dubinina’s first contention, that the default judgment is void due to the lack of compliance with the requirements of section 585…

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.