Filed 9/22/26 Marriage of Raju CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re the Marriage of NIDA MIRZA
and SAAGAR K. RAJU.
SAAGAR K. RAJU,
G065081
Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. 20D001452)
v.
NIDA MIRZA RAJU, OPINION
Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Thomas James Lo, Judge. Affirmed. Respondent’s application for anonymity.
Denied.
Law Offices of Patrick A. McCall and Patrick A. McCall, for
Appellant.
Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall and Lisa R. McCall, for
Respondent.
* * *
Sagaar K. Raju appeals from a judgment of reserved issues
(judgment), wherein the trial court found that a piece of real property located
in Irvine, California (the “Irvine property”) was the sole and separate
1
property of respondent Nida Mirza Raju. Saagar contends substantial
evidence did not support the trial court’s finding. As discussed below, we
exercise our independent review to conclude the Irvine property was
transmuted from Saagar’s sole and separate property to Nida’s sole and
separate property. Alternatively, the trial court’s finding was supported by
2
substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I
PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION AND REQUEST FOR ORDER
The parties married on August 8, 2015, and separated on
February 20, 2020. They have one minor child. A status-only judgment
dissolving their marriage was entered June 29, 2023.
A court trial was held on the remaining reserved issues,
including the characterization of the Irvine property. At trial, Saagar
1
As is customary in family law matters, we refer to the parties by
their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.
2
Initially, Saagar also appealed a custody determination of the
parties’ minor child. Due to subsequent events, as the parties acknowledged
in supplemental briefing, that issue is now moot. Additionally, largely as a
result of the mootness of the child custody issue, we deny Nida’s application
for anonymity.
2
testified he acquired the Irvine property in July 2010, and paid off the
mortgage before his marriage.
Around August 2019, Saagar elected to enter a rehabilitation
program for substance abuse treatment. According to Saagar, Nida
threatened to leave and take their child if he did not transfer the Irvine
property to her. Depressed and desperate to save his marriage, he signed a
grant deed in August 2019, transferring 50 percent of his interest in the
Irvine property to Nida. The following month, he suffered a relapse and was
readmitted. In October 2019, Saagar executed another grant deed
transferring the remaining interest to Nida. During this period, Nida had
continued to threaten to divorce him and take their child. Shortly after
Saagar gave Nida the second grant deed, the couple began living apart.
Saagar testified that Nida never advised him that she would re-
transfer the Irvine property into a trust she created for the benefit of their
child. On cross-examination, however, he acknowledged receiving text
messages from Nida stating that she would place the Irvine property into a
trust for their child.
Nida testified that Saagar was the person who first raised the
issue of transferring the Irvine property. In August 2019, Saagar told her “he
would like for [her] to have [the Irvine property] in [her] name as a sign of his
love.” Later in December, she discussed with him about putting the Irvine
property into a trust for the benefit of their child. Saagar said “it was a good
idea, and that [she] should go ahead and put it with [their child] as the sole
beneficiary.” Nida testified the Irvine property presently is in a trust for the
sole benefit of their child, and she plans on keeping it that way.
Three grant deeds were admitted into evidence. Two grant deeds,
recorded August 20, 2019 and October 18, 2019, conveyed the Irvine property
3
to Nida. Accompanying both grant deeds were declarations from Saagar
attesting he was transferring his interest in the Irvine property to Nida as
her sole and separate property. The third grant deed, recorded January 14,
2020, transferred the Irvine property into a trust Nida created.
On November 13, 2024, the trial court issued its judgment. As to
the Irvine property, the trial court found Saagar’s testimony on the issue was
not credible. The court found Nida rebutted the presumption of under
influence under Family Code section 721,3 and that Saagar “freely and
voluntarily transferred the [Irvine] property . . . to Nida . . . with full
knowledge of all the facts and with a complete understanding of the
transfers.” It concluded the Irvine property was Nida’s sole and separate
property.
Saagar timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Saagar challenges the trial court’s finding that the Irvine
property is Nida’s sole and separate property. Under section 850, “married
persons may by agreement or transfer, with or without consideration,”
“[t]ransmute separate property of one spouse to separate property of the
other spouse,” Section 852, subdivision (a) provides: “A transmutation of real
or personal property is not valid unless made in writing by an express
declaration that is made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse
whose interest in the property is adversely affected.”
“In deciding whether a transmutation has occurred, we interpret
the written instruments independently, without resort to extrinsic evidence.
[Citations.] Under the circumstances, we are not bound by the interpretation
3
All further statutory references are to the Family Code.
4
given to the written instruments by the trial court.” (In re Marriage of
Starkman (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 659, 664.)
Here, exercising our independent review, we conclude the grant
deeds recorded in August and October 2019 and the accompanying
declarations by Saagar satisfy the statutory requirements for transmutation
of the Irvine property from Saagar’s sole and separate property to Nida’s sole
and separate property.
Saagar asserts the proper standard of review is whether
substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the Irvine
property is Nida’s sole and separate property. (See In re Marriage of Dekker
(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 842, 849 [“Appellate review of a trial court's finding
that a particular item is separate or community property is limited to a
determination of whether any substantial evidence supports the finding”].)
Under this standard, “[o]ur review is limited to a determination whether
there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that
supports the finding. [Citation.] In so reviewing, all conflicts must be resolved
in favor of plaintiff-respondent and all legitimate and reasonable inferences
must be indulged to uphold the finding.” (McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23
Cal.App.3d 343, 356.) We conclude independent review of the grant deeds
and declarations is appropriate under the circumstances of this case because
the controlling issue is the transmutation of the Irvine property. As discussed
above, under that standard of review a transmutation occurred.
Nevertheless, even under the review urged by Saagar, we conclude that
substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the Irvine
property was Nida’s sole and separate property. The grant deeds and Nida’s
testimony establish that Saagar intended to and did transmute the Irvine
5
property from his sole and separate property into Nida’s sole and separate
property.
Saagar claims “[t]he text messages put into evidence by Nida
showed that Saagar agreed to transfer his interest in the [Irvine] property for
the purpose of placing the [Irvine] property in trust for the minor child—
Saagar did not agree to transfer the [Irvine] property to Nida as her sole and
separate property.” We disagree. The text messages were sent in December
2019, months after the grant deeds transmuting the Irvine property into
Nida’s sole and separate property were recorded. Although the text messages
indicated the couple had earlier discussions about placing the Irvine property
into a trust for their minor child, there is no evidence those discussions pre-
dated the execution and recording of the grant deeds. Thus, the text
messages do not contradict Nida’s testimony that Saagar was the one who
first brought up the issue of transferring the Irvine property to her in August
2019 and that he stated he wanted to transfer the Irvine property to her as a
sign of his love. Substantial evidence thus supports the trial court’s finding
4
that the Irvine property is Nida’s sole and separate property.
4
It is unclear whether Saagar also is challenging the trial court’s
finding that Nida rebutted the presumption of undue influence under section
721.To the extent he raises that claim, Nida’s testimony supports the trial
court’s finding, and for the same reasons stated above, the text messages do
not undermine that finding.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Nida is entitled to her costs on appeal.
DELANEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
MOORE, J.
7