6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/05/12 Morning Session - May 12, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/05/12 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 55m 3 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps does the court follow at the start of a morning session?

Justice Wilson 1:25

Thanks.

Unknown 2:02

Hmm.

Unknown 3:12

Bye-bye.

Unknown 8:32

Good morning. Please have a seat. Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. To those of you who are here in the audience, and I know we have some remote participants as well, good morning to you. I'm joined by Justices Lee and Wilson for three matters on our calendar, although we will have a panel change after the second matter. So rather than call the calendar all at once, I will call the cases individually, at which time you can confirm your appearance and your time estimates. I will note, for those of you in the audience, that we do have monitors here on the bench and at council tables, so we'll be able to both see and hear our remote participants. Anyone in the audience, though, you'll just hear the audio, but the video is captured in our live stream and recording and available on a screen just outside the courtroom.

Unknown 9:24

Other than that, we have laptops here on the bench where we have access to all the electronic briefs, records, notes, and anything that we need during argument. So we will be connected there. And with that, I will go ahead and call our first matter. And I believe both of our participants are appearing remotely. And that is the matter of FAM versus CosDogly. And I'll invite counsel to correct my pronunciation also, if that's necessary. So Ms. FAM, good morning. Are you able to hear us? Yes, I can hear you fine. Very good. So I think that you have requested seven minutes for your opening argument and reserving eight minutes to rebut. Is that still correct? Yeah, it could be a little bit over, maybe seven or eight minutes.

Unknown 10:23

But if I can, just not getting any interruption so I can get my whole speech down, if that's okay. All right. We will try to hold our questions until we have a break from you. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And for responding, good morning.

Emile Nijme 10:41

Good morning, Your Honor. Emil Nijme on behalf of the appellee respondent, Mr. Kaz Dagli, who is also present remotely.

Unknown 10:49

All right, very good. So, Ms. Pham, if you're ready, we are interested in hearing your arguments this morning, so you may go ahead. Okay, yeah, so your honors, I have a brief structure, just seven minutes, so if I can get uninterrupted when I say the whole thing, that would be great. So this appeal present multiple independent reversible errors arising from contradictory rulings, ignore tracing evidence and proceedings that raise serious due process concerns under the 14th Amendment. Many of these issues were not meanfully addressed in the respondent's brief. First, contradictory fiduciary duty rulings. The trial court expressively ruled fidelity account 4019 will be awarded to wife. CT volume 3, page 659, line 129.

Unknown 11:43

Opposing counsel even acknowledged on the record the court did not order that there were a transmutation. RT December 6, 2024, at 678, line 17 to 19. Yet the court then imposed a 329,409 fiduciary duty sanction on that same private account. Your Honors, this is legally impossible. Fiduciary duties under Family Code 721 and 1101 apply only to community property. Once the court found no transportation, the sanction cannot stand. At the same time, my accountant traced substantial community property in Chase account 1158817596520450, totaling 234,605 as of the date of separation. This entitled me to 114,000 under Family Code 2550, CT volume two, page 2227 to 238. Those accounts contained respondent employment income earned during marriage, yet the court still awarded them as respondent separate property, while simultaneously imposing fiduciary sanctions against my private account despite expressively finding no transmutation.

Unknown 13:08

These inconsistent characterization rulings cannot be reconciled under the same community property principles. Respondent owe me the highest duty of good faith, yet the court ignored this trace community property entirely. These contradictory rulings on the same financial picture constitute a clear reversible error. Respondent brief did not address them and reversal is required. Second, 46,000 fee award and patent of procedural inconsistencies.