Marriage of Kim
Filed 6/23/06 Marriage of Kim CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| In re Marriage of IKUYO and JAESOK KIM. | |
| IKUYO HIRAGUCHI, Respondent, v. JAESOK KIM, Appellant. | G035926 (Super. Ct. No. 04D001448) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda L. Miller, Judge. Affirmed.
Jaesok Kim, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Law Offices of Robert L. Malin and Robert L. Malin for Respondent.
* * *
Jaesok Kim (husband) appeals from a final judgment of dissolution. His central contention is the court erroneously characterized the family residence by indulging the presumption of community property under Family Code section 760[1] and the presumption of undue influence derived from section 721 to disregard a quitclaim deed signed by Ikuyo Hiraguchi (wife) at the time husband purchased the family residence. He argues the home should have been designated his separate property, and assuming wife had any community property rights, the court erred in its allocation of the parties' respective interests in the home. Husband also challenges the court's determination it was without jurisdiction to modify its orders while this appeal was pending. In addition, husband argues the proceedings were tainted by extrinsic fraud consisting of the alleged unethical conduct of wife's attorney, who should have been disqualified from further representation in the case. Husband raises a number of other issues warranting only brief mention.
As addressed more fully in our discussion, post, we conclude the court properly determined the character of the residence and appropriately utilized the reimbursement statute, section 2640, to decide the extent of husband's separate interest therein. As for the other aspects of the judgment, we find no reversible error in any respect, and consequently, we affirm.
FACTS
Husband and wife were married in October 1998. Three months later, they bought a home on Heatherwood Road in Anaheim. It is undisputed the residence was purchased with a down payment of $53,700 taken from husband's separate funds in money market accounts preexisting the marriage. Husband and wife applied for a joint loan, but wife was without a credit history. Therefore, as a condition of making the loan to husband, the lender required wife to remise, release and quitclaim the property to husband, with title taken by â€
