Thursday, July 16, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Ability to Pay Punitive-Damage Award Can’t Be Assumed
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district has reversed an award of punitive damages in the amount of $250,000, holding that it cannot stand in the absence of evidence as to the appellant’s financial worth, and observing that an ability to pay cannot be inferred from evidence that that the woman owns a house in Woodland Hills and applied more than $500,000 of her own money to fixing the house she was claiming, in probate proceedings to be hers.
Justice Victoria M. Chavez of Div. Two authored the unpublished opinion, filed Tuesday.
The litigation before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jessica A. Uzcategui pitted Marilyn “Lindy” Harton-Ross, the first wife of decedent Victor Bagha, against Bagha’s third wife, Raida Alimardani. Each claimed ownership of the property at 1430 S. La Brea Ave., south of Pico Boulevard and North of Venice Boulevard.
Horton-Ross and Bagha were divorced in 1978 after a nine-year marriage. Bagha and Alimardani were wed in October 2006; they separated in January 2015; the wife filed for divorce and proceedings had not been completed as the time of Bagha’s death.
On March 22, 2017, Bagha executed a holographic will saying:
“I am giving whatever I own
“To the 4 children in case
“If I die Lindy Harton Ross
“My ex wife is responsible to take
“Care of my belonging all children
“Will receive each 25% equal”
Superior Court Litigation
Bagha died on Oct. 11, 2017; on Dec. 14 of that year, Harton-Ross filed a petition for probate and for letters testamentary; Raida Alimardani on June 14, 2018, filed a will contest; other proceedings were subsequently brought.
Among Alimardani’s contentions was that a deed of the property to her was valid. She had executed the deed, herself, invoking a power of attorney her husband had executed on July 13, 2010, while he was in jail.
Uzcategui ruled on June 27, 2023, that the La Brea property, acquired by Bagha prior to his marriage to Alimardani, was his separate property at the time of his death, and that it passed to the four children. She found that Harton-Ross “has met her burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that Raida is guilty of fraud” and, acting pursuant to Civil Code §3294, awarded punitive damages.
Argument on Appeal
Arguing for Alimardani on appeal, Beverly Hills attorney David Zarmi wrote in the opening brief:
“This appeal presents a straightforward question: Can a trial court impose $ 250,000 in punitive damages without any evidence whatsoever of the defendant’s ability to pay? Under decades of binding California precedent, the answer is no.”
Zarmi added:
“Here, respondent presented no evidence of appellant’s income, assets, or liabilities. The probate court’s statement of decision is devoid of any findings regarding appellant’s financial condition. Respondent did not even ask appellant about her net worth when she was on the stand. Respondent’s trial briefs contained no argument regarding appellant’s ability to pay. The $250,000 figure has no anchor in the evidence.”
The brief notes testimony by Alimardani as to personal funds she had expended on repairs to the property. She said:
“I spent so much money, I can’t—over a half a million dollars.”
She also testified that she gave Bagha money to start a business and that she had paid $36,072.38 in property taxes on the building.
Harton-Ross did not file a respondent’s brief and, on March 25 of this year, a letter was filed by the Court of Appeal in which she indicated non-opposition to the requested relief.
Chavez’s Opinion
Chavez wrote:
“We conclude punitive damages cannot be awarded against appellant because the trial record has no evidence demonstrating her financial condition and ability to pay the damage award. Appellant was never questioned as to her income, assets, or liabilities. Appellant’s finances or ability to pay punitive damages were not issues raised in the trial briefs. Without meaningful evidence on such matters, it cannot be determined if imposing punitive damages against appellant is appropriate or excessive….[P]unitive damages can only deter, not financially destroy, a defendant.”
She continued:
“The only trial testimony involving appellant’s assets was a brief statement appellant gave indicating she owns a house in Woodland Hills. But this statement alone cannot establish appellant’s financial condition for the purpose of deciding punitive damages. Appellant was not questioned as to whether any encumbrances are attached to the Woodland Hills house. There is no evidence that the mere fact appellant owns this house somehow demonstrates her overall financial state or ability to pay punitive damages. Without further evidence as to appellant’s other assets and liabilities, her financial ability to pay the punitive damages award cannot be determined.”
The justice added:
“Finally, appellant indicates she testified to spending a substantial amount in renovations, delinquent property taxes, and repairs for the La Brea property. Appellant maintains this evidence tends to show her financial inability to pay the punitive damages award. Indeed, the testimony may show appellant’s inability to pay the damage award if she spent most of her resources on the property. But more significantly, this evidence shows we can only speculate as to appellant’s ability to pay given a lack of evidence of her overall finances. We note respondent indicates she has reviewed the evidence and does not oppose striking the order for punitive damages. Accordingly, this matter should be remanded to vacate the punitive damages award against appellant.”
The case is Estate of Bagha, B332514.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company