Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alireza Aghamahmoudi and Homeira Darehshiri married in 2010 and separated in January 2018. Their dissolution proceedings lasted years amid changes in counsel, bankruptcy filings, and repeated continuances. At a March 3, 2021 hearing, the superior court ordered Aghamahmoudi to pay $800 per month in spousal support for three and a half years, from March 2021 through September 2024. A partial trial on June 10, 2022 resolved disputes over Persian rugs, pawned items, a Union Bank account, a tax refund, cash, and a lease deposit, while leaving other property, debt, and attorney-fee issues for later proceedings.
The remaining trial was continued repeatedly. On November 13, 2023, the court granted one last continuance and set trial for August 7, 2024. There was no transcript of that hearing, but the findings and order stated that Darehshiri did not appear in person as previously ordered, appeared remotely, requested another continuance, then disconnected and failed to answer the clerk's calls. The court denied further delay and proceeded. Its August 9, 2024 judgment reconfirmed the earlier property rulings, credited Aghamahmoudi $8,359.78 for post-separation payments on the car that remained in Darehshiri's possession and $5,434.29 for one-half of the National Debt Relief payments, found the laptop had no value, assigned Darehshiri's student loans to her as separate debt, ended spousal support after September 30, 2024, and calculated that she owed Aghamahmoudi $11,849.07. Darehshiri, representing herself on appeal, challenged the judgment on due-process, evidentiary, bankruptcy, fiduciary, unresolved-issue, and attorney-negligence grounds. Aghamahmoudi did not appear in the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It reviews spousal support, community property division, and sanctions for abuse of discretion and property-character findings for substantial evidence, resolving all conflicts and reasonable inferences in favor of the prevailing party. A judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant must support factual statements with record citations and legal positions with reasoned argument and authority; self-representation does not lessen that burden. The court found that Darehshiri routinely cited the last page of voluminous transcripts, described pleadings without page numbers, and usually failed to explain how her cited authorities applied. It therefore held her arguments waived, while still addressing those it could decipher.
On the claimed medical emergency, the court found no citation or evidence that Darehshiri required ambulance transportation on August 7, 2024, or that witnesses were present. It distinguished Oliveros because the trial court had considered the litigation history, the prior continuances, its warning that no more would be granted, and prejudice to Aghamahmoudi. Because the trial court had ordered an in-person appearance and Darehshiri appeared remotely, she precluded an adequate record of her alleged emergency. The appellate court declined to reweigh credibility or the evidence supporting the property determinations, noting the judgment reflected her earlier testimony.
The remaining claims also failed. The record showed sanctions had never been ordered, several supposedly unresolved matters were addressed in the judgment, and the rest were not shown to have been adequately raised. Darehshiri did not establish that the National Debt Relief payments were discharged debts or that Aghamahmoudi received reimbursement, so crediting his post-separation payments under Family Code section 2626 was not error. Alleged negligence by privately retained counsel supplies no basis for reversal in a dissolution proceeding, and she identified neither the attorney nor a specific resulting error. The judgment was affirmed, with costs on appeal awarded to respondent.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must support facts with record citations and legal positions with reasoned argument and authority; self-representation does not excuse those requirements.
- Inadequately developed arguments are treated as waived, though the court may still address claims it can decipher.
- The due-process challenge failed because the alleged emergency and witnesses were unsupported and the trial court had weighed the extensive continuance history.
- Appellate courts do not reweigh credibility determinations or factual findings supporting dissolution property decisions.
- Credits for post-separation payments on community debt stand where the appellant cannot tie them to discharged debts or show reimbursement.
Why It Matters
The decision applies settled appellate-preservation and burden-of-proof principles to a fact-intensive dissolution appeal. Its analysis turns on the absence of an adequate record and developed argument, not on any new rule governing medical continuances, property division, or bankruptcy.
It also illustrates how appearing remotely contrary to an in-person order can impair an appellant's ability to document an asserted emergency. The unpublished opinion is not citable except as California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b), permits.