Filed 10/6/20 Marriage of Feng and Tian CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re Marriage of JINGTAO FENG and LI TIAN. JINGTAO FENG, G057949 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 17FL000060) v. OPINION LI TIAN, Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan H. Cannon, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed as modified. Law Office of Alan S. Yockelson, Alan S. Yockelson; Hittelman Strunk Law Group and Steven G. Hittelman for Appellant. Holstrom, Block & Parke and Ronald B. Funk for Respondent. * * * INTRODUCTION Jingtao Feng (Husband) and Li Tian (Wife) divorced in China, and executed a written divorce agreement purporting to divide all of their property. A California court later determined that one piece of real property in California and one investment in a business in the United States (neither of which had been specifically mentioned in the parties’ written divorce agreement) were Wife’s separate property. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the real property was Wife’s separate property, but does not support the finding that the business investment was Wife’s separate property. The business investment is properly categorized as community property. The trial court found that Husband breached his fiduciary duty to Wife by encumbering her separate property without her knowledge or consent, and permitting her properties to be lost to foreclosure. The trial court’s findings regarding the breach of fiduciary duty claims are supported by substantial evidence. We reverse the trial court’s finding that the business investment was Wife’s separate property, and instead conclude that the business investment is the parties’ community property. As modified, we affirm the judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. THE PARTIES Husband and Wife married in the Republic of China in February 2003. They owned numerous businesses and properties in China and in the United States. One of these businesses was Wuhan Yiyang Technology Company, Ltd., a Chinese company 1 in the business of sterilizing and disinfection (Wuhan Yiyang); at the time of their 1 The name of this business is also identified as Wuhan Yihang in the appellate record; for consistency, we will use the spelling Wuhan Yiyang, which is the most common spelling in the record. 2 divorce, 80 percent of the shares of the company were held in Husband’s name, and the other 20 percent were held in Wife’s name. Another of their businesses was Wuhan Juirui Electric Co. Ltd., a Chinese company in the business of manufacturing large equipment (Wuhan Juirui). At all relevant times, Wuhan Juirui was owned 90 percent by Wuhan Yiyang, and 10 percent by Husband. The other ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals