This is the information page concerning appellate case H050115.

Appeal 2 is now pending H052147

Original Trial

• Ekaterina's March 8 RFO
  Ekaterina files a motion that kicks off this multi-year litigation. Among other things, she attempts to steal my condo and double-dip on community property division by claiming that my GOOG stocks were "omitted". In fact she already received cash value of these stocks.
• Response to March 8 RFO
  I debunk Ekaterina's claims. Also point out that she committed multiple counts of perjury and filed this motion in bad faith.
• Eugene's Trial Brief
• Ekaterina's Trial Brief
• Statement of Decision
  It was made deliberately ambiguous. For example it says that "it appears as though Katia did not receive any Google stock". Well yes. She received other stocks of equal value.
• Order
  Family Court issues a decision. Ekaterina loses on almost all issues except "omitted assets". The court gifts her 18 (pre-split) GOOG shares for which Ekaterina already received cash value. Also gifts her another $60,000 as sanctions. Ekaterina originally got about about 54% of community property. After this order her total is increased:
  • to 64% if only the additional GOOG shares are counted (approximately $48,000 at that time)
  • to 77% the $60,000 gift is also included.
  This can only be described as legalized robbery.

Appeal

• Appellant's Opening Brief
  Statement of the Case section has a detailed description of what happened from the beginning of this case until the appeal. I wrote it myself. The legal arguments were written by my lawyer.
• Respondent's Brief
  Ekaterina responds with sophistry and misdirection.
• Appellant's Reply Brief
  I ran out of money and was forced to continue the fight without a lawyer. I am also about $90,000 in debt at this point, an amount that will only increase.
• Decision
  Court of Appeal issues a hair-splitting decision. It rules that Google stocks were "omitted" but acknoledges that Ekaterina received their cash value. The case is sent back to Family Court.
• Petition for Rehearing
  I point out some issues Court of Appeal did not address. I also predict that Family Court will once again divide community property unequally unless the Court of Appeal issues a specific order prohibniting this.
• Rehearing denied

Remand

• Eugene's Trial Brief
  Case History section provides an overview of the case.
• Ekaterina's Trial Brief
• Eugene's Closing Statement
  I am forced to address not only the issue that was remanded, but also the issues that the judge allowed Ekaterina to relitigate.
• Ekaterina's Closing Statement
• Eugene's Supplemental Declaration
  I point out an elementary mathematical mistake in Ekaterina's argument.
• Remand Order
  The judge decided to simply rubberstamp her previous order.
• Objection
  I object. Family Court is fudging numbers and violating due process.
• Motion for new trial
  Of course it was denied.

Appeal 2

• Appelant's Opening Brief
• Respondent's Brief
• Appelant's Reply Brief

Contact me: email