Husband’s Use of Entities to Hide Assets, As Found By Lower Court, Also Supported Order.
In Marriage of Saadian, Case No. B227708 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 2, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife obtained an order by which ex-husband—who had monthly cash flow over $62,400 (yep, you heard right)—had to pay her $1 million for fees and costs, without prejudice to future requests, including almost $500,000 out of a frozen escrow account. There were settlement attempts and various attempts to work things out while the order was appealed, to no avail ultimately.
Landmark West, one of husband’s affiliated entities, appealed the order, but was found to not be aggrieved for purposes of appellate standing. This entity had no interest in the escrowed funds, so that was that. On the merits, however, the lower court also applied the reasoning of Marriage of Dick, 15 Cal.App.4th 144 (1993), where a husband was found to have an ability to pay temporary support and attorney’s fees, despite denials, based on attempting to hide resources in other entities.
Affirmed, with the lower court having to discretion to determine if further costs and expenses should be assessed for the prosecution of the appeals.
Justice Chaney, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, wrote the majority decision.