1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/05/26 - May 26, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/05/26

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 37m 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the main issues being appealed in the Dinopoly vs Dinopoly case?

Unknown 0:16

Good morning and please be seated, everyone.

Unknown 0:25

Okay, so once they get squared away, let's call the first uh matter on our calendar, which is uh Dinopoly versus Dinopoly. And we have one person on the screen and one person in the courtroom. So let's begin with the person in the courtroom, just the appearances, please.

Charles Kagey 0:44

Uh uh good morning, Your Honor. Um I'm Charles Keggy from the Complex Appellate Litigation Group, uh, representing the appellant Maya de Napoli.

Unknown 0:53

Thank you. And uh let's turn to council for Antonio Dinopoli.

John Dodd 0:58

Well, Your Honor, John Dodd for respondent.

Unknown 1:01

Okay. And uh you can mute yourself, um, uh, Mr. Dodd, and then let me turn back to Mr. Kagey and ask how much, if any, of your fifteen minutes you'd like to reserve for rebuttal.

Charles Kagey 1:14

I'd like

Unknown 1:14

to try to reserve four minutes if I can. Four minutes. Okay, so we'll put eleven uh minutes on the clock and you may proceed.

Charles Kagey 1:21

Thank you. Um this is a twelve-year marriage that was followed by an eleven year dissolution proceeding. So there are a lot of issues here. I'm going to try to talk about some of the highlights, but I'll be happy to answer questions about any any of the matters the court is interested in. I think the critical breaking point in the marriage came in twenty thirteen when Tony committed domestic violence against Maya. resulting in criminal conviction. a domestic violence restraining order, a DVRO, and ultimately dissolution. A major error in the court below was its failure to enforce Tony's obligations under the DVRO. He was required to pay about eighty seven hundred dollars

Unknown 2:03

a month. Did your client seek enforcement under the D VRO?

Charles Kagey 2:08

Well yes, that she s she sought enforcement with within the

Unknown 2:12

not not in obtaining the DRO, but it but in in in enforcement of the obligations that were imposed under the d under the DRO itself. Yes,

Charles Kagey 2:20

that was a major issue at trial. That's when when when when we finally had the long cause trial that decided what what would happen with all the finances, that was one of her major issues. And um In addition to requiring Tony to pay eighty seven hundred dollars a month.

Unknown 2:37

Well let me let me back up for a second. The D V R O Required Tony to pay The Uh mortgage and HOA, correct? That's correct. And І не трал. Obviously the алокація Unit thirty one F was a major issue and you know, what was community property and what was separate property, right? Um and Your argument on appeal is that Tony should have been required to pay Maya. the amounts that he should have paid. to the HOA and to the bank to pay the mortgage, correct? Correct. Those are Those seem to me to be two slightly different things. In other words, the D VRO required Tony to pay the bank. And whatever, Ritz Carlton, you know, uh or Four Seasons Homeowners Association, right? Right. Versus What you're arguing on appeal and what you were arguing the trial court was that Tony was required to pay Maya.

Unknown 3:57

Those amounts.

Charles Kagey 3:57

Well well we're saying is that Uh, when it came time to equalize the finances, uh Maya had paid all the money that Tony was required to pay.

Unknown 4:07

And but but my question earlier was was whether your client side enforcement and specifically with the clarification that my colleague has just made through her questions, did your client seek to require Tony to to pay those amounts to to the homeowners association and to the four C's?

Charles Kagey 4:30

I don't I don't know that she made any specific any specific action before the court to have that happen because it was just not happening. So it's a

Unknown 4:38

it's a different argument that that that you're making on appeal than than than the than the one that you presented to the trial court.

Charles Kagey 4:45

Well it's it's I don't think it's a different argument. I mean the the argument to the trial court was that

Unknown 4:50

the the r the economically I suppose Because money is fudgible, y you you you would say that it it results in the same thing. But your client never went into court and said, Look, he's not paying these amounts to the HOA, so I've got to pay them. You you need to I want to enforce his obligation to to to pay the money to the HOA or the four seasons.