Desire Meli Kocarslan’s neighbors around 605 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates want to live in peace and harmony alongside her. For over a decade, this simple goal has proven to be extremely difficult to accomplish. Over the years, various neighbors have engaged her in acts of friendship and neighborly kindness, only to be punished therefor. The only goal of this website is to bring peace to our neighborhood by assisting the cessation of illegal rental activity at 605 Paseo del Mar. Any and all legal, non-event venue rentals not only are unopposed by various neighbors, but in fact we find nearly any other legal tenant a highly likely improvement over Ms. Kocarslan herself.
California vs. Melahat Uzumcu 2009 Wedding House Lawsuit (click here)
In order to better understand the motivating factors of Desire Kocarslan’s (Melahat Uzumcu’s) aberrant behavior toward her neighbors and various renters of 605 Paseo del Mar, a background legal search was conducted. The results of this search were staggering in their depth and scope. Today in 2016, a judge presiding over any prospective litigation by Kocarslan shall have available this history of malicious prosecution, with the attendant risk of enormous damages being awarded to her legal counterparties.
Based on nearly two decades of Desire Kocarslan entering various California courtrooms, it would appear that Kocarslan/Uzumcu a) massively and continually overplays her bad legal “hands” due to overconfidence in her ability to deceive judges and/or b) considers the court system a roulette wheel with associated low (enough) costs worth the spin (especially if she were not to pay her attorneys), even if her case isn’t strong and she is squandering scarce city and state resources in the process. As taxpayers into this legal system, neighbors of Kocarslan are pleading with her to stop this abuse of the legal system, which already is strained with the weight of bursting-at-the-seams daily dockets and truly dire legal scenarios requiring adjudication.
605 Paseo del Mar Struck by Vandalism (click here; scroll down to Sept. 17)
“Between 6 p.m. Sept. 17 and noon Sept. 19, eggs were thrown on a resident’s vehicle in the 600 block of Paseo Del Mar, causing damage.”
The State of California suing Melahat Uzumcu in 2009 over the “Illegal Wedding House” certainly was not Desire Kocarslan’s first time in a courtroom. In fact, standing in front of a judge has become commonplace for the former Melahat Uzumcu. In the search conducted, over 20 lawsuits involving Desire Kocarslan (or her former name Melahat Uzumcu) were found, ranging from her husband filing for a TRO for domestic violence, a TRO for harassment, breach of contract, shoplifting, engaging in fraud to avoid paying legal judgment(s), and a variety of other offenses prosecuted by the State of California, City of Palos Verdes Estates, and private parties.
Defendant in Palos Verdes Estates Party House Gets Third Delay (Daily Breeze, 12/15/2009)
Not depicted below are a variety of near-litigation scenarios wherein parties came close to suing her, including the summer of 2014 when Mark Fowler of Reliant Rehabilitation (https://www.reliant-rehab.com/) threatened to sue for Kocarslan’s alleged refusal to return his purported $20,000 security deposit over allegedly fabricated claims of Fowler’s damage to the house. In April 2014, prior to the deposit dispute, Mr. Fowler also felt compelled to seek out an air quality consultant due to his being “afraid [he was] going to drop here from hydrogen sulfide poisoning …”
- Umran Uzumcu v. Melahat Uzumcu: Desire Kocarslan’s former husband flied for this Temporary Restraining Order (domestic violence) against her in California Superior Court on 02/17/1999 (Case No. BD295528; plaintiff husband represented by J.J. Kayajanian); there can be no surprise that a divorce filing was made in the same courthouse soon thereafter (see Item 2 below); Umran Uzumcu in a happier moment
- Uzumcu v. Uzumcu Dissolution of Marriage: after just over three years of marriage and two children (1995 and 1997 born), divorce proceedings commenced with a 03/10/1999 filing in the California Superior Court that endured over eight years and five judges, seeing Melahat go through a series of law firms (child custody lawyer Glenn Buzard, D. Amato of Lewis Brisbois, and William Powell) (Case No. BD296901; Judges Ana Maria Luna, Roy Paul, Aviva Bobb, John Sandoz and Ann Jones presiding); interestingly, Chris Fitzpatrick of local Pacific Land Corporation intervened in the case; background of marriage and divorce found at bottom of this post;
- Loehmanns Dept. Store Shoplifting: according to California vs. Melahat Uzumcu et. al., on or about January 4, 2001, she and Zulfiye Bicici unlawfully did steal, take or carry away the personal property of another of value not exceeding $400 (California Penal Code § 494(a)) and unlawfully entered a building, structure or locked vehicle (Loehmanns department store) with the intent then and there to commit grand or petty larceny or any felony (California Penal Code § 459); Case No. 1SB00445; shockingly, Uzumcu was defended by onetime PVE Mayor and child molester defender George Bird, fortunately since terminated in that position and sent by Gov. Brown to Torrance Superior Court.
- Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu: in a contract dispute, Desire Kocarslan sued her husband on 03/01/2002 in the midst of their other divorce litigation in California Superior Court (Case No. BC269207; Judge Helen Bendix again presiding); interestingly, in addition to terminating attorneys Barbara K. Hammers (motioned for relief as Kocarslan’s attorney on 05/22/2003) and Douglas S. Honig, Melahat’s attorney Burton Mark Senkfor later sued Kocarslan (see below);
- Umran Uzumcu v. Melahat Uzumcu: Desire Kocarslan’s former husband filed this collections-related case against her in California Superior Court on 08/21/2002; again, it appears Melahat went through a list of attorneys – John A. Ellis, Douglas Honig and Mark Rademacher (Rubin & Rahe) (Case. No. BC280153; Judge Richard Hubbell presiding); note that Rademacher turned around and sued his (former) client in Item 8 below;
- Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu: making sure that Umran considered marrying Meli perhaps the worst decision of his life, Desire Meli again turned to attorney Douglas Honig (getting rich off this client?) to sue him on August 30, 2002 in California Superior Court in a tort case (Case No. BC280701; Judge Victor Person residing);
- Badillo Raymond vs. Melahat Uzumcu: Desire Kocarslan was sued on 02/21/2003 in California Superior Court in this civil case by Dr. Raymond Badillo, a board certified anesthesiologist in Manhattan Beach (Case No. YC045943);
- Rose & Rademacher vs. Melahat Uzumcu: In what seems is the start of a trend, Desire Kocarslan was sued on 05/17/2004 in California Superior Court for breach of contract by the divorce
and child custody law firm Rose & Rademacher’s Mark Rademacher (Case No. BC315661; Judge Mel Red Recana presiding); see items below for confirmation;
- Melahat Uzumcu vs. Orly “the Matchmaker” Hadeda: Desire Kocarslan, apparently on a seriously expensive hunt for Umran’s replacement, sued “Orly the Matchmaker” of Beverly Hills (click link) for $74,545 on 07/07/2004 and 05/27/2005 (judgement lien) via California Recorders Office and California Secretary of State (Case No. 200400515943 and 057028718644); it would seem that Desire Meli felt the “most famous and successful matchmaker in the world,” and not Meli’s appearance, personality, character or background, was responsible for “high end” men not lining up by the dozen for a crack at romance Meli-style; to Kocarslan’s credit, there does seem to be solid justification for this lawsuit based on public information impugning Orly’s performance (click here and here).
- McClaran v. J.P. Eliopulos Enterprises: litigation filed on 06/06/2005 in California Court of Appeals, in which Uzumcu filed a letter on 10-21-2005 (Case No. B183926);
- Uzumcu v. Uzumcu et. al.: The Uzumcu couple started anew on 06/13/2005 in California Court (Case No. B183929; Judge Avivva Bobb presiding again); on 04/14/2005, the trial court filed its Decision and Judgment in the above 1999 divorce case, which seems to have gone against Melahat as she filed this notice of appeal;
- Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu: The Uzumcu couple faced off in court again after Desire Kocarslan filed this lawsuit on 10/31/2005 in California Court of Appeals, with Melahat representing herself this time against Umran’s John L Dodd of Tustin, CA (Case No. B187085; Judge Avivva Bobb presiding again);
- Melahat Uzumcu v. Umran Uzumcu: Desire Kocarslan teed up Burton Mark Senkfor to sue her (former) husband yet again on 07/30/2007 in California Appeals Court – 2nd District) (Case No. B201008; Judge Avivva Bobb presiding yet again); Chris Fitzpatrick of Pacific Land Corporation shows up here as an intervener (see below); petition for rehearing at California Supreme Court denied on 03/12/2009
- Melahat Uzumcu vs. Pacific Land Corporation: then Pacific Land found itself in appellate court due to Melahat Uzumcu appealing Chris Fitzpatrick’s victory – that case involving Fitzpatrick demanding that Melahat pay brokerage commissions relating to up-the-street Trent Merrill’s $6.8 million offer for 605 Paseo del Mar on 03/01/2005. That offer led to Melahat’s ill-timed decision to perfect her court-ordered right of first refusal, essentially at the very top of the real estate market cycle; it should be noted that Desire Meli Kocarslan attempted to use the fact that she did not sign Fitzpatrick’s listing agreement to her legal benefit during this lawsuit – matching reports we have received of Kocarslan engaging in similar deflection, delay and refusal to sign rental agreement for 605 Paseo del Mar; the appellate judge found various contentions “devoid of merit” during the appeal; decision in favor of Fitzpatrick rendered 02/23/2009;
- Protax, LLC vs. Uzumcu: Desire Kocarslan, along with Umran Uzumcu and Nihat Kocarslan (brother), found themselves being sued in this case filed on 09/01/2009 in California Superior Court/San Diego County (Case No. 37-2009-00097395);
- California v. Melahat Uzumcu (the “Wedding House” Lawsuit): Desire Kocarslan was arraigned on 09/29/2009 for using her home at 605 Paseo del Mar, Palos Verdes Estates, CA illegally as a wedding event venue (Case No. 9SY08502; to view legal complaint click here); the feeble ($500 fine) 2010 plea agreement Kocarslan reached with the State only made inevitable return of “Chateau del Mar” as an illegal event venue, and consequently this entire website;
- Desire Meli Kocarslan v. Memet Kocarslan: now going under her new, Google-search-sanitized name for the first time as a plaintiff, Desire Kocarslan targeted another family member in a motor vehicle case filed by her attorney Roger Jon Diamond on 06/01/2010 in California Superior Court (Case No. BC438774);
- Palos Verdes Estates v. Melahat Uzumcu: Even after just being prosecuted for her Wedding House, Uzumcu was charged only months later in 12/2010 with misdemeanor vandalism and illegal dumping of a City-owned, 25′ tall, 4′ diameter palm tree that was diminishing her view from a 100′ tall cliff on City land alongside her property at 605 Paseo del Mar (click here and here); in rather typical form, Uzumcu reportedly tried to blame her gardener, incredibly asserting that he had cut down the tree without her permission;
- Burton Mark Senkfor v. Melahat Uzumcu: yet another law firm formerly working for Desire Kocarslan, the Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor, now found itself suing her on 06/20/2011 in California Superior Court (Case No. SC113086); the judge awarded Senkor a judgment for $61,537.45 on 12/20/2012, as seen from the June 2016 title report excerpt below. Could it be that she has built a tendency not to pay her legal bills?
- Desire Meli Kocarslan v. Ginette Marie Pilote aka Boruch Isre: Desire/Meli/whatever had a busy month of March it seems, with this harassment case filed on 03/19/2012 in California Superior Court (Case No. YS023596); It is our understanding that Kocarslan did not prevail in achieving her goals.
- Shepherd Clark v. Melahat Uzurricu: Only a few weeks after Clark did Kocarslan a favor by speaking on her behalf regarding Kocarslan’s illegal cliffside decks (see Page 5 of http://www.pvestates.org/home/showdocument?id=1098), Clark went to court for a restraining/injunctive order for civil harassment vs. Kocarslan on 03/23/2012 in California Superior Court (Case No. YS023605;click here); this appears to be a countersuit to Desire M. Kocarslan v. Shepard Clark filed 03/15/2012 in the California Superior Court (Case No. YS023590) ;
- Kocarslan v. City of Palos Verdes Estates: The site believes this case is particularly illustrative of Desire Kocarslan’s approach to laws in general (i.e., they don’t apply to her) and the legal system intended to enforce them (to be abused vs. used). Melahat Uzumcu squandered no small amount of her and the City’s resources trying to get after-the-fact approval for her non-permitted, 2006-constructed, illegal rear yard decks. After getting caught by City Public Works Director Allan Rigg in 07/2010, and then after ignoring the City for 15 months receiving yet another City letter ordering removal or permit, Kocarslan’s permit was denied by the Planning Commission (click for Page 3 here for 01/17/2012 City 5-0 vote against Kocarslan – concluding that the decks were “visually intrusive” and did not meet the requirements set forth in the municipal code or the
California Coastal Act). Never one to hesitate wasting scarce court and City resources, Kocarslan and her representative Roger Arroyo then appealed to the City Council, but lost again on 03/13/2012 (even though Kocarslan blamed her deck contractor who she claimed had not told her she needed permits.) Kocarslan then hired lawyer Laleh Ensafi to file a lawsuit on 04/09/2012 (Case No. B253026; Judges Luis Lavin and Barbara Meiers presiding), but lost again when the trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate (“based on common sense and … required permits before they were constructed”), thereby ordering Kocarslan to remove the decks within 30 days; after nearly five years of City code enforcement efforts, litigation and appeals, on 03/11/2015 Kocarslan’s crusade met its final demise when Judges Zelon, Perluss and Feuer of the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision; Kocarslan was forced to reverse her illegal activities by removing the structures in mid-2015, though she still advertises her property with photos depicting the now-removed decks (click here);
- Law Offices of Ramin Azadegan v. Uzumcu: yet another law firm sued Desire Kocarslan, Melahat Uzumcu and Richardson & Directors Associates LLC in California Superior Court on 07/03/2014; oddly, suing plaintiff believed that Desire Kocarslan and Melahat Uzumcu were “sisters” rather than one-and-the-same; Azadegan sued “the sisters” due to his 12/15/2009 lawsuit against Uzumcu (Case Nos. 09C04911 and 09CB4911) for breach of contract; the judge awarded Azadegan a judgment for $34,380.36 on 08/12/2011, as seen from the June 2016 title report excerpt below. Could it be that she has built a tendency not to pay her legal bills?
Azadegan later claimed that Uzumcu in 2010 transferred the deed to 605 Paseo del Mar to her “sister” Kocarslan as a fraudulent conveyance to “deceive and avoid” the creditors to whom she owed $34,380.36 judgment from the 2009 case; (Case No. BC550337; Judge Holly E. Kendig presiding);
- Asli Uzumcu v. Thomas Anastassiou & James Anastassiou: In late 10/2015, after catching wind of the community joining again to compel the City to prosecute Desire Kocarslan for the illegal commercial use of 605 Paseo del Mar for wedding and other events (see Item 25 below), it seems Kocarslan used her daughter Asli Uzumcu as legal bait in the court system, yet again. Appallingly, Kocarslan guided her then-18 year old daughter to file a petition in the California Superior Court making claims of needing a restraining order against the Anastassiou brothers. Claims made by Uzumcu includes that one or both of the never-married James and/or Thomas Anastassiou were staring out their window (lewdly?) at the young scantily-clad-at-times (see photo) girl. The judge, reportedly after threatening to throw mother Kocarslan out of the courtroom for coaching her daughter’s answers to the judge’s questions, saw through the charade and dismissed the petition. From the looks of things both in and out of the courtoom, seems we have a “like mother, like daughter” nightmare in the making. One has to feel sorry for these two girls being raised under the influence of this horrible woman.
- City of Palos Verdes Estates v. Desire Kocarslan/Melahat Uzumcu /Selin Uzumcu (the 2nd “Wedding House” Lawsuit): After incontrovertible evidence accumulated that Desire Kocarslan yet again was determined to break the law by continuing to rent illegally her residence as a commercial event venue, she and co-defendant/daughter Selin Uzumcu defended themselves unsuccessfully at a hearing held on 03/02/2016 before California Superior Court Judge Ramona See (Case No. YC071142); Judge See signed the preliminary injunction enjoining/restraining Desire Kocarslan/Selin Uzumcu from renting 605PdM “for the purposes of hosting a commercial event for > 20 persons in violation of the PVEMC” on 04/26/2016. On November 18, 2016, after hearing evidence during the trial, Judge See ruled in favor of a permanent injunction (see below) against Kocarslan and Uzumcu.
Palos Verdes Estates woman who rented house for weddings cited in tree incident (Daily Breeze, 12/28/2010)
Lifestyles of Turkey’s rich and infamous (Asia Times, 05/07/2009)
Source: Judge Zelon P.J. Perluss 12/17/2007 Appeals Decision, in California Court of Appeals, relating to Melahat Uzumcu’s failed 06/2005 appeal of judgment by California Superior Court Judges Avivva Bobb and Gary Klausner:
“Husband and wife initially met in Turkey in the year 1988. A fair and reasonable inference from the record on appeal would cast husband in the position of being quite wealthy and wife in the circumstances of having far less material wealth. Husband’’s father had been in the cable manufacturing business and died in the year 1990. Following the demise of his father, husband inherited an interest in the cable company which was sold to a French company in 1993. The amount realized from the sale was a matter of contention at the time of trial with wife testifying that husband told her the company had been sold for $40 million dollars, which husband denied, and indicated the company had been sold for $13 to $14 million dollars.
Laying aside the question as to the sale price of the company for the time being, this court focuses on the paramount question presented by this appeal, namely, wife’’s contention that substantial evidence was lacking for the trial court’’s determination awarding and confirming certain personal property to husband as his sole and separate property. Wife contends evidence to the contrary indicates that the husband had made gifts of certain personal property to her and the personal property under review by the trial court compelled a decision that the property was hers alone as gifts based on husband’’s donative intent, accompanied by delivery. For the most part, husband’’s contention on appeal is just [*2] the reverse of wife’’s contention, namely substantial evidence supports the award of certain items to him, but substantial evidence is lacking on those items awarded to wife as gifts by him to her.
Because donative intent is fraught with subjective considerations and quite frequently not documented in writing within an emotional relationship such as husband and wife, this court finds it advantageous, if not an outright necessity, to recite the extensive background and relevant life experiences of the parties, as presented by the record in this case or reasonable inferences therefrom.
In 1993, wife participated in the selection and purchase by husband of a residence in Rancho Palos Verdes, valued at $4.2 million dollars as of April 13, 1999. Commencing in 1994, wife participated in the selection and purchase by husband of various and sundry personal property items which form the vortex of the major contentions of the parties on appeal. The items referred to are generally described as jewelry, paintings, furniture, antiques and “”objects d’’art”” being so labeled by wife in her appellant’’s opening brief. The general procedures used by husband and wife to locate and acquire these personal properties involved looking at auction catalogues, attending auctions, visiting art stores, galleries, and dealerships. At wife’’s “”behest””, as stated in her opening brief, husband would then purchase expensive women’’s jewelry and artwork.
According to wife, from 1993-1999, she resided with husband in the residence in Palos Verdes, as well as in luxurious homes in exclusive neighborhoods in Istanbul, Turkey, which wife maintains were filled with expensive artwork, furniture, and antiques purchased from art and antique galleries, dealerships, jewelry brokers, and auctions that husband and wife attended together while traveling between their homes and to New York and Europe. The homes had servants, including housekeepers, cooks, gardeners and nannies.
As further background information, husband and wife are from different religious groups. Wife is from the Alevi sect, but husband is Sunni. According to wife as stated in her appellant’’s opening brief, under Turkish tradition and custom an Alevi woman who married a Sunni would be marginalized from her family and would lose her family’’s financial protection. For this reason, wife was reluctant to marry husband.
Wife gives further insight into Turkish tradition and society by stating in her opening brief that there is a strong tradition of the groom giving pre-marital gifts of gold and jewelry to the bride herself, which is known as “”bride wealth,”” with the amount given increasing with the wealth of the groom. Wife maintains that “”bride wealth”” is a sign of status for the groom’’s family also because the bride is given wealth commensurate with the groom’’s social and economic standing.
In 1994, husband and wife were living together but not actually married. Wife became pregnant and their daughter, S., was born in August 1995. Marriage was then discussed as a more urgent topic. Wife asserts [*3] that husband told her that she already had more security than any other woman her age because of the jewelry and other items husband had given her, and that he had given her far more than her family could have ever afforded to give her. On December 22, 1995, husband and wife were married and a second daughter, A., was born in April 1997.
Numerous items of expensive jewelry were purchased by husband during the years from 1994 to 1998, prior to their separation in 1999, which wife contends were gifts to her by husband. Husband counters wife’’s claim by contending that the jewelry was his separate property and that the wife never even wore any of the jewelry.
Trial court findings on claims to personal property items.
As accurately summarized in wife’’s brief on appeal, the trial court found the following personal property items to be gifts to wife, giving description, date of acquisition and estimated value:
“”1. 7.14 carat diamond ring, purchased on September 14, 1994 for $288,400;
“”2. Pearl and diamond earclips and matching ring, purchased on October 17, 1994 for $12,650;
“”3. Black pearl and diamond earclips and matching ring, purchased on October 17, 1994 for $21,850;
“”4. Black pearl necklace, purchased on October 19, 2004 for $68,500;
“”5. Pearl necklace, purchased on October 19, 1994 for $32,200;
“”6. Sapphire and diamond ring, purchased on October 19, 1994 for $90,500;
“”7. 8.69 carat intense yellow diamond ring, purchased on December 6, 1994 for $147,000;
“”8. Sapphire bracelet, purchased on December 7, 1994 for $51,750;
“”9. Diamond bracelet, purchased on December 7, 1994 for $40,250;
“”10. Intense yellow diamond earrings, purchased in October 1995 for $70,000;
“”11. Piaget watch, purchased on November 2, 1995 for $6,900;
“”12. Antique emerald and diamond brooch, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 167,700 Swiss francs;
“”13. Ruby and diamond necklace, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 120,000 Swiss francs;
“”14. Emerald and diamond ring, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 220,000 Swiss francs;
“”15. Pearl necklace, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 170,000 Swiss francs;
“”16. Gold and diamond Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry suite, purchased on December 4, 1995 for $24,150;
“”17. Sapphire and diamond Harry Winston earclips, purchased on December 4, 1995 for $23,000;
“”18. Diamond ‘’wedding’’ ring, purchased after the marriage for approximately $5,000-$6,000; and
“”19. Diamond Van Cleef & Arpels bracelet, purchased on October 21, 1996 for $134,500.””
Again, as accurately summarized in wife’’s brief on appeal, the trial court found the following personal property items were not gifts to wife and constituted the property of husband as his sole and separate property and likewise gave a description, date of acquisition and estimated value:
“”1. Emerald ring, purchased October 24, 1995 for $101,500;
“”2. 17.5 carat diamond ring (Melahat’’s actual intended wedding ring), purchased on October 25, 1995 for $657,500;
“”3. Ruby and diamond LaCloche bracelet, purchased on November 16, 1995 for 132,000 Swiss francs;
“”4. Gold necklace, purchased on November 21, 1995 for $2,500;
“”5. Gold jewelry suite, purchased on November 21, 1995 for $5,500;
“”6. Diamond and emerald earclips, purchased on December [*4] 7, 1995 for 17,000 pounds sterling;
“”7. Antique emerald Cartier cufflinks (to be made into earrings to match an emerald ring purchased), purchased on December 4, 1995 for $63,000;
“”8. Emerald and diamond Van Cleef & Arpels ring, purchased on December 7, 1995 for 17,000 pounds sterling;
“”9. Sapphire and diamond ring, purchased on December 7, 1995 for 33,000 pounds sterling;
“”10. Diamond and ruby choker [and earrings], purchased on November 20, 1996 for 66,700 Swiss francs;
“”11. Diamond necklace, purchased on February 18, 1998 for 16,000 Swiss francs;
“”12. Antique emerald and diamond necklace, purchased on February 18, 1998 for 75,000 Swiss francs; and
“”13. 10 carat sapphire stone, purchased on February 18, 1998 for $100,000.””
Other personal property items in contention.
Wife claims that numerous paintings were also purchased by husband during this time period. Three of the paintings were claimed by wife to be gifts to her. Wife contends that one of the three was sold in an effort to get husband to pay child support obligations which wife claims husband never did. Two of the paintings described as “”A View of Constantinople/Istanbul and the Bosphourus”” by Ivan Aivozovsky and “”In the Harem”” by Rudolf Ernst were awarded to husband. Wife contends the trial court erroneously based its ruling on lack of donative intent and delivery inasmuch as the evidence showed the paintings were on display in the residence and the fact that the display was in the “”common”” areas should not serve to nullify these items as gifts to her.
Contentions on appeal.
Wife’’s contention on appeal is summarized as one which attacks the findings of the trial court awarding personal property to husband which she claims were gifts to her. Wife maintains the trial court lacked a legal basis to make such findings as demonstrated by the colloquy between the court and counsel during trial in which the court sought “”corroborating evidence from wife to establish the gifts of jewelry to her.”” She states in her opening brief “”That the trial court repeatedly [and] erroneously found that there was insufficient evidence of delivery of particular items of jewelry to [wife], when there was sufficient evidence of such delivery but it was not independently corroborated, and the rule with respect to delivery of gifts is not strictly applied to gifts within a family (particularly as between husband and wife).”” To accentuate wife’’s claim of error by the trial court in requiring corroborative testimony, wife sets forth in her brief on appeal an excerpt from the record which she describes as “”just a few of the many excerpts”” as follows:
“”‘’THE COURT: Obviously, you can tell what I am looking for which is ––
“”‘'[Husband’’s Counsel]: Third party corroboration compared to the list and compared to anything else.
“”‘’THE COURT: Which is evidence before the Court that would fulfill the elements to meet your burden of proof other than by your witness’’ –– by your client’’s testimony.
“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: I understand that’’s the Court inquiry and will endeavor to do that but I would hope that the Court recognizes although it does have a dilemma, that my [*5] client’’s testimony alone is sufficient to meet the burden if the Court finds it to be credible.
“”‘’THE COURT: I understand the law in that respect.’’””
“”‘’THE COURT: Can you tell me as to which of these items there is testimony about it –– can in your client’’s position other than from possession –– other than testimony –– other than your client’’s testimony about these items being in her possession?
“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: There is testimony –– well, I can pull it out and detail it for you.
“”‘’THE COURT: Well, you could just refer to it, but it would be of assistance –– we had the advantage with respect to the Palos Verdes home of having, in my view, an independent witness. And I am looking for –– I don’’t know how independent the other witnesses are, but to the extent there are at least other witnesses, there are some items as to which we have testimony from other witnesses and some items as to which we have no testimony from other witnesses.’’””
“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: Your Honor, following up on the question of the Court, I would point out that although many of the pieces have been particularly described as having been in the possession of Mrs. Uzumcu by the various witnesses, not all of them have been covered. But I urge the Court that the testimony of Mr. Uzumcu was that none of these things with the exception of a pair of earrings were ever in her possession. And I have now given to the Court 14 or 15 pieces that were identified as being in her possession or a photograph of her wearing those things and there is testimony that there was other jewelry. [¶¶] . . . So what we are probably talking about is well in excess of the majority of these pieces have been seen in the possession of Mrs. Uzumcu by independent witnesses who I think a fair assessment of their independence is that these people were friends of both parties. [¶¶] And independence –– they absolutely contradict the vehement denial by Mr. Uzumcu that this jewelry was ever in the possession of Mrs. Uzumcu. And I hope that her inability to produce a photograph because Mr. Uzumcu has got all the photographs of her wearing some of these other pieces or to produce that particular witness from Istanbul or elsewhere that saw her wearing one of these pieces is not going to significantly impact the Court’’s decision as to whether or not these items were a gift to her. . . . [¶¶] So I would certainly hope the Court wouldn’’t penalize Mrs. Uzumcu because she is unable to bring forward a witness seeing her wear every single piece of this jewelry, because she can’’t remember what all of her friends have seen. But I don’’t think it is fair to her to say, “”if no one saw you wear, it doesn’’t belong to you,”” given that Mr. Uzumcu’’s testimony about the reason for the purchase is so inherently unbelievable.’’””
“”‘’THE COURT: That’’s what I was asking counsel to try to see how to put List Three together with what there is independent corroboration of.’’””
“”‘’THE COURT: . . . Excuse me. I would like to hear specifically on 514(2), is there are (sic) corroborating testimony? . . . .
“”‘'[Wife’’s Counsel]: When you say “”corroborating”” you mean other than Mrs. Uzumcu?
“”‘’THE COURT: Correct.’’””
Husband’’s response to wife’’s contention is essentially the reverse mirror [*6] image of wife’’s contention in that he maintains substantial evidence supports the findings of the trial court inasmuch as those findings award personal property to him as his sole and separate property, but attacks the findings of the trial court as lacking substantial evidence where items of personal property were awarded to wife as her sole and separate property as constituting gifts by him to her, in the face of lack of donative intent and/or delivery. In addition to the issues above mentioned, husband raises other issues in his cross-appeal. We do not reach the claims of Husband in his cross-appeal in view of the untimely filing of the cross-appeal thereby depriving this court of jurisdiction to hear Husband’’s claims, as more particularly discussed hereafter.2“
This web page and related posts and commentary represent both publicly available and direct witness/participant facts and personal opinions, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Comments made by third parties, in the Comment Section below or elsewhere, represent commentators’ own representations of facts and own opinions.