![]() The California appeals court summarized the decision of the trial court: Shahen, Alice, and Arthur filed separate demurrers on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. Arthur concocted the entire scheme to hinder, delay, or defraud Shahen’s creditors.Shahen, in making the alleged transfers, acted with “’an actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor” for purposes of the UVTA.Plaintiffs are creditors within the meaning of California’s enactment of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) (section 3439 et seq.).The divorce between Shahen and Alice is a “complete sham”.In July 2018 Plaintiffs filed the fraudulent transfer action, alleging causes of action for fraudulent transfer under California Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(1), constructive fraudulent transfer under California Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(2), aiding and abetting fraudulent transfer (against Arthur), and constructive trust (against Alice). The California Fraudulent Transfer Action In November 2018, the court issued its final statement of decision in the underlying action, awarding plaintiffs over $34 million, and entered a judgment for the amount. In August 2018, Arthur deeded his interest in the condominium to Alice. Three days later, Alice used the proceeds from the sale to purchase, in her and Arthur’s name, a condominium in Sherman Oaks for $389,500 in an “all-cash transaction.” Arthur thereafter lived in the condominium. In June 2018, after the trial in the underlying action but before the court issued its statement of decision, Alice sold the second Sherman Oaks property to a third party for $970,000, with net proceeds to Alice of at least $500,000. Shahen testified during 12 days of the trial, without showing signs of diminished capacity. Trial was held on the underlying action in September 2017. In August of 2017, Arthur, as Shahen’s attorney-in-fact, executed quitclaim deeds to Alice of Shahen’s interest in their two Sherman Oaks properties. A family court judgment was entered approving the stipulation. ![]() Shahen assumed the entire obligation to pay any judgment against him in the underlying action. In June 2017, Arthur, as Shahen’s guardian, and Alice stipulated to a division of property in the dissolution action that allocated the Sherman Oaks properties to Alice. In January 2017, Shahen and Alice obtained a reverse mortgage on their residence in the amount of $938,250. Notwithstanding the dissolution proceeding and ostensible separation, Shahen and Alice continued to live together and hold themselves out as husband and wife. About three weeks after Alice filed the petition, the family court granted Arthur’s application to be appointed Shahen’s guardian ad litem in the dissolution proceeding. In furtherance of this scheme, Alice filed a petition for the dissolution of her marriage on September 26, 2016. to hinder, delay or defraud Shahen’s creditors, particularly laintiffs, by putting two houses owned by Shahen and Alice as “husband and wife as joint tenants” in Sherman Oaks into Alice’s name only, thereby making it more difficult for Plaintiffs to levy on the houses. While the underlying action was pending, Arthur, Shahen, and Alice (Shahen’s wife) “concocted” a scheme. According to Arthur’s application, Shahen was unable to comprehend the nature of the proceedings and could not adequately assist his counsel in defense of the underlying action. In 2016, Arthur, Shahen’s son, applied to be appointed as Shahen’s guardian ad litem in the underlying action. Plaintiffs sought $105 million in damages. ![]() In 2013, Plaintiffs sued Shahen Minassian based on actions Shahen took beginning in 1996 pertaining to trust properties located in Iran (the underlying action). This is a dispute alleging causes of action stemming from alleged fraudulent transfers under California law brought by the trustees and beneficiaries of The Galstian Trust II established by their late parents. Minassian, the California Court of Appeal, Second District analyzed whether plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims involving fraudulent transfer of assets under California law, and ultimately reversed the trial court’s judgment sustaining defendants’ demurrers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |