From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parvizian v. Parvizian

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Sep 12, 2008
No. B204329 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SC077052, Linda Lefkowitz, Judge.

Syrus Parvizian, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Alex Powell and Alex Powell for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ARMSTRONG, J.

Appellant Syrus Parvizian was once married to respondent Malak Parvizian. (Hereinafter, we refer to the parties by first name, to avoid confusion.) Malak filed for dissolution in April of 1997 and after protracted litigation, the marriage was dissolved in October 2001. Syrus appealed from the judgment, which was affirmed on appeal in B158111, filed in May of 2003. Malak then filed an action against Syrus (and others) for enforcement of a money judgment arising from the judgment of dissolution and to set aside as fraudulent Syrus's transfer of certain real property. The trial court granted the relief Malak sought.

Syrus appealed and Malak cross-appealed, raising a contention about fees. We affirmed all orders in October 2005, in B178609. We ordered costs on appeal to Malak. On remittitur, the trial court awarded Malak costs in the sum of $1,631.94. Syrus appealed. In August of 2007, in B191718, we reversed the order insofar as it awarded Malak costs incurred in connection with her cross-appeal. On remand, the trial court issued a corrected costs award. Syrus has now appealed from that order. The majority of his contentions are duplicative of contentions he raised in his earlier appeals. That is, he challenges orders made in the dissolution itself and renews his objections to some of the costs sought in Malak's suit to enforce the judgment. All of those matters have been finally determined, and we discuss them no further.

Syrus's sole new contention on this appeal is that the costs award must be reversed because Malak did not file a new memorandum of costs on remand, or appear at a trial court hearing. These are the facts: When the trial court received the remittitur, it set a hearing "to determine costs consistent with the ruling of the Court of Appeal," and ruled that "The parties may file a memorandum of points and authorities upon their respective positions as to this issue . . . ." Syrus filed a pleading titled "Memorandum of Cost After Appeal and Cross Appeal," in which he contended that no costs should be awarded. Malak did not file a pleading or appear at the hearing. The trial court analyzed her original Memorandum of Costs, subtracted amounts connected to the cross-appeal, and entered a new and different costs order. Syrus filed a motion for reconsideration, challenging other items of costs, admittedly unrelated to the cross-appeal. The court denied the motion.

We see nothing in Malak's failure to file a new Memorandum or failure to appear at the hearing which means that the trial court erred or that the costs award must be reversed. A new costs memoranda was not required. We say the same about Malak's presence in the trial court. The trial court followed our directions on remand, and thus did not err. (Hampton v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1952) 38 Cal.2d 652, 655.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal.

We concur: TURNER, P. J., KRIEGLER, J.


Summaries of

Parvizian v. Parvizian

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division
Sep 12, 2008
No. B204329 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)
Case details for

Parvizian v. Parvizian

Case Details

Full title:MALAK PARVIZIAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SYRUS PARVIZIAN, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fifth Division

Date published: Sep 12, 2008

Citations

No. B204329 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 12, 2008)