Filed 12/22/22 Wasserman v. Wizgan CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BRUCE WASSERMAN,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAANAN WIZGAN et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

B314205

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 19BBCV00464

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County. William D. Stewart, Judge. Affirmed.

Klass, Helman & Ross and Robert M. Ross for Plaintiff

and Respondent.

Halil Hasic and Marc J. Gedeon for Defendants and 

Appellants.

_________________________
2

Bruce Wasserman sued Felix and Jacqueline Wizgan

(the Wizgans), alleging their son fraudulently transferred stock

to them in order to avoid a judgment. The Wizgans failed to 

appear at trial, and the court entered judgment in Wasserman’s 

favor. On appeal, the Wizgans argue the judgment is not 

supported by substantial evidence, the court erred by entering 

a money judgment, and the judgment should be set aside on 

equitable grounds. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2017, Wasserman obtained a $73,865.87 money 

judgment against Raanan Wizgan. While attempting to 

collect the judgment, Wasserman discovered that Raanan 

had transferred his interest in his company—Truepriced—to 

his parents, Felix and Jacqueline Wizgan. Wasserman filed a 

complaint against the Wizgans seeking to set aside the transfer, 

which he alleged was done to hinder, delay, or defraud him 

as Raanan’s creditor.

The case proceeded to a court trial, which began on 

March 8, 2021. The Wizgans did not appear at trial. Wasserman 

presented 25 exhibits, which the court admitted into evidence. 

The exhibits included documents showing Raanan formed 

Truepriced in 2015 and transferred his interest in the company 

to his parents in 2018. Wasserman also submitted numerous 

financial records for Truepriced.

In addition to the exhibits, Wasserman presented 

testimony from two witnesses. The Wizgans did not include 

in the appellate record a reporter’s transcript of the trial or 

a statement summarizing it, so we do not have the witness 

testimony in front of us. According to Wasserman, one of his 

witnesses was an expert who testified that Truepriced had a 
3

value of at least $250,000 when Raanan transferred his stock 

to the Wizgans.

At the end of the first day of trial, the court continued the

trial to March 30, 2021. On March 26, the parties stipulated to 

continue the trial to May 2021 to allow Wasserman’s attorney 

time to recover from surgery. The trial resumed on May 3, 2021, 

and the Wizgans again failed to appear.

The court found Wasserman proved each allegation of his 

claim by a preponderance of the evidence. It entered judgment in 

his favor for $73,865.87 in damages plus $27,445.44 in interest.

About three weeks after the court entered judgment, the 

Wizgans filed an ex parte application for a stay of execution 

of judgment until July 30, 2021. In support, they submitted 

a declaration from their attorney, Halil Hasic, in which he 

represented that conservatorship petitions had been filed for 

the Wizgans on March 5, 2021. The Wizgans also submitted a

declaration from their son, Raanan, who claimed they suffered 

from cognitive impairments. The court apparently denied the

application for a stay, and the Wizgans timely appealed the

judgment.

DISCUSSION

1. We deny Wasserman’s motion to dismiss the appeal

Wasserman moved to dismiss this appeal based on the 

Wizgans’ failure to provide a record of the oral proceedings in 

the trial court. Rule 8.120 of the California Rules of Court states 

that, if an “appellant intends to raise any issue that requires 

consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the 

record on appeal must include a record of these oral proceedings.” 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) Under certain circumstances, 

a reviewing court may dismiss an appeal if the appellant fails to 
4

procure an adequate record. (See rules 8.140, 8.276; Beckley v. 

Board of Administration Etc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 691, 693, 

fn. 1.)

The Wizgans’ appeal is premised, in part, on their assertion 

that Wasserman failed to submit sufficient evidence at trial to 

support his claims. As Wasserman points out, to evaluate that 

contention fully, we must consider the testimony at trial. The 

Wizgans’ failure to provide any record of the oral proceedings 

below, however, prevents us from doing so. Nevertheless, 

because the Wizgans make other arguments that do not require 

consideration of the oral proceedings, we deny Wasserman’s 

motion and consider the appeal on the merits.

2. The Wizgans’ arguments lack merit

The Wizgans make three primary arguments on appeal,

which we consider in turn.

First, the Wizgans contend Wasserman did not submit 

sufficient evidence to show that the value of Truepriced at the 

time of the transfer exceeded the value of Wasserman’s judgment 

against Raanan. The Wizgans’ failure to submit a record of the 

trial testimony is fatal to their claim. The most fundamental rule 

of appellate review is that “judgments and orders are presumed 

correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. [Citation.] 

Consequently, appellant[s] [have] the burden of providing an 

adequate record. [Citations.] Failure to provide an adequate 

record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against

appellant[s]. [Citation.] Without a record, either by transcript or 

settled statement, a reviewing court must make all presumptions 

in favor of the validity of the judgment.” (Randall v. Mousseau

(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935.)
5

Because the Wizgans failed to provide a record of the 

trial testimony, we must presume it supports the judgment. 

Accordingly, we must presume Wasserman submitted testimony 

at trial sufficient to prove that the value of Truepriced at the 

time of the transfer exceeded the value of Wasserman’s judgment 

against Raanan. The Wizgans, therefore, have not met their 

burden of showing the judgment lacks the support of substantial 

evidence. 

The Wizgans next argue the trial court should have limited 

the judgment to the return of the Truepriced shares, rather than 

entering a money judgment against them. The Wizgans fail, 

however, to support their argument with any analysis or citations 

to relevant authority. “[A]n appellant must present argument 

and authorities on each point to which error is asserted or else 

the issue is waived.” (Kurinij v. Hanna & Morton (1997) 55 

Cal.App.4th 853, 867.) Matters not properly raised or that lack 

adequate legal discussion will be deemed forfeited. (Keyes v. 

Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655–656.) In short, an 

appellant must demonstrate prejudicial or reversible error based 

on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to an adequate 

record. (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 

Cal.App.4th 547, 556–557 (Yield Dynamics).) The Wizgans have 

not done so here. That alone provides a sufficient basis to reject 

their claim.

The Wizgans’ argument also fails on the merits. Under 

the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), a transfer 

made by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor if the debtor made 

the transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud 

the creditor. (Civ. Code, § 3439.04.) To the extent a transfer 

is voidable, the creditor may recover from the first transferee 
6

of the asset a “judgment for the value of the asset transferred . . . 

or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, whichever 

is less.” (Id., § 3439.08, subd. (b); see Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 

223 Cal.App.4th 1231, 1235.) Here, the trial court found Raanan 

transferred the Truepriced stock to the Wizgans in order to 

defraud his creditor, Wasserman. Because the Wizgans were 

the first transferees of the asset, Wasserman could obtain a 

money judgment against them under the UVTA. (See Civ. Code, 

§ 3439.08, subd. (b).)

Lastly, the Wizgans contend the judgment should be 

set aside on equitable grounds because the court likely would 

have stayed the trial had it been aware of the conservatorship 

petitions. The Wizgans’ argument fails for several reasons. 

First, they have not supported it with meaningful analysis or 

citations to the record, which alone provides a sufficient basis 

to deny their claim. (See Yield Dynamics, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th 

at pp. 556–557.) Second, although the Wizgans moved to stay the 

judgment temporarily based on the filing of the conservatorship 

petitions, there is no indication that they also moved to set aside 

the judgment. Their failure to raise the issue in the trial court 

forfeits it on appeal. (See Howitson v. Evans Hotels, LLC (2022) 

81 Cal.App.5th 475, 489 [“It is well settled that the failure to 

raise an issue in the trial court typically forfeits on appeal any 

claim of error based on that issue.”].) Finally, even if we were 

to overlook these issues, there is nothing in the record showing 

a court granted the conservatorship petitions, nor do the Wizgans 

claim they were incompetent at the time of trial. Absent such 

evidence, there is no basis to set aside the judgment on equitable 

grounds.
7

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Bruce Wasserman shall recover 

his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

RICHARDSON (ANNE K.), J.

 Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.