Marriage of Alvarado
Filed 3/20/06 Marriage of Alvarado CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re the Marriage of JOSE AND ANGELES ALVARADO. | |
| JOSE ALVARADO, Petitioner, v. ANGELES ALVARADO, Appellant; JOSE ARAIZA et al., Respondents. | E037572 (Super.Ct.No. SBF64042) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Duke D. Rouse, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed.
Eudene Eunique for Appellant.
Mannerino & Briguglio and Sal Briguglio for Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Underlying this appeal from a summary judgment is a marital dissolution proceeding between Angeles Alvarado (wife) and Jose Alvarado (husband). During the course of that proceeding, husband and wife stipulated that their community residence would be sold and that they would share in the net proceeds. Several months later, wife learned that husband had sold the house to his stepfather and uncle, Jose Araiza and Francisco Araiza (buyers), at a price considerably below its fair market value.
After her motion to join buyers was granted, wife sued husband and buyers, seeking, among other things, to set aside as a fraudulent transfer husband's sale of the house to buyers. Buyers moved for summary judgment, asserting as a defense that they were bona fide purchasers (BFP) for value. The court granted the motion, finding that wife did not present competent admissible evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of fact in order to defeat buyers' defense. Wife contends the motion should have been denied because, notwithstanding any procedural shortcoming on her part in opposing the motion, buyers failed to meet their burden to present undisputed facts to support each element of their defense. We agree and reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Wife and husband had been married for more than 25 years when, in early 2002, husband filed a petition to dissolve the marriage. In October, the parties entered into a handwritten stipulation for judgment, providing, among other things, that their residence was to be â€
