A former spouse is contesting a court's judgment over the division of proceeds from their family home, alleging a significant mathematical error. On August 20, 2024, Rodolfo Arreola filed an appeal in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, against Elsa Garcia. The case stems from a judgment entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on May 15, 2023.
The crux of the dispute revolves around the dissolution of marriage between Arreola and Garcia, who were married for nearly seven years. Following their separation, the trial court ruled that the only community property asset was the proceeds from selling their family residence. These proceeds were held in trust by Garcia’s attorneys. The court allocated $41,559.30 to Arreola as his share of these proceeds and assigned him separate debts totaling $60,000. Additionally, Arreola was ordered to pay $5,000 in sanctions to Garcia’s attorneys under Family Code Section 271.
Arreola contested this judgment by filing a Request for Order (RFO), arguing that there had been a mathematical error in calculating his portion of the sale proceeds. He claimed that based on his calculations, he should receive $66,455.15 instead of $41,559.30. However, the trial court denied his RFO stating there was no change in circumstances warranting a modification of the judgment.
In his appeal, Arreola reiterated his claim about the alleged miscalculation but did not dispute other aspects of the judgment such as his separate debt or sanctions imposed on him. He argued that deductions including a $30,000 relocation assistance were improperly double-counted against his share of the proceeds from their home sale which amounted to $203,118.61 after all deductions.
The appellate court noted that without sufficient records like a reporter’s transcript or detailed reasoning behind the trial court's conclusion on how it arrived at Arreola’s share being $41,559.30; it could not ascertain whether there indeed was a miscalculation as alleged by Arreola.
Consequently, the appellate court remanded the matter back to Superior Court with directions to recalculate Arreola’s entitled amount from home sale proceeds ensuring consistency with its findings post-trial while noting that each party bears their own costs for this appeal process.
This legal battle highlights complexities often involved in divorce proceedings especially concerning financial settlements where precise calculations are crucial yet prone to disputes requiring meticulous judicial scrutiny.
The case was presided over by Commissioner Marilyn M. Mordetzky at Los Angeles County Superior Court with Grace White representing defendant-appellant Rodolfo Arreola while no appearance was made for plaintiff-respondent Elsa Garcia during this appeal process under Case ID B333148.