Christina Botros Bajewski Versus Christoph Patrick Bajewski

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana
__________

No. 26-CA-37
________________

CHRISTINA BOTROS BAJEWSKI

versus

CHRISTOPH PATRICK BAJEWSKI

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 696-980, DIVISION "I"
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER, JUDGE PRESIDING

September 23, 2026

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
John J. Molaison, Jr., and Timothy S. Marcel

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS
JJM
SMC
TSM

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
CHRISTOPH BAJEWSKI
Jennifer C. Carter
Dixon C. Brown

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
CHRISTINA BOTROS BRIGNAC
James E. Moorman, III

MOLAISON, J.

The appellant, Christoph Bajewski, appeals the trial court’s August 8, 2025

judgment partitioning the former community property between him and his former

wife. We affirm the judgment in part, vacate it in part, and remand with

instructions.

FACTS

Mr. Bajewski and Christina Brignac (formerly Bajewski) married in 2004.

Ms. Brignac’s filing for divorce on January 14, 2011, terminated their community

property regime. On March 18, 2014, Ms. Brignac filed a petition to partition the

community along with a detailed descriptive list of the community property. Mr.

Bajewski answered the petition, alleging the marital home was his separate

property. Ms. Brignac claimed the home was community property based on a

Quitclaim Deed Mr. Bajewski executed on April 19, 2007. Mr. Bajewski

attempted to revoke the Quitclaim Deed in a separate action but did not succeed.

In this appeal, he claims the home is not community property.

The parties filed a joint detailed descriptive list identifying the assets of the

former community and indicating whether they agreed or disagreed on each asset’s

value. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Ms. Brignac,

awarding an equalizing payment of $169,632.50. Mr. Bajewski filed a timely

suspensive appeal from that judgment.

DISCUSSION

At trial, the parties asked the court to resolve five issues: (1) the value and

characterization of the family home, (2) the value of Ms. Brignac’s LASERS

retirement plan, (3) the value of a motorcycle, (4) the amount of Ms. Brignac’s

rental reimbursement claim, and (5) whether Mr. Bajewski owed Ms. Brignac

damages for mismanagement of the family home.

26-CA-37 1

Value of the family home

On appeal, Mr. Bajewski claims the trial court erred in valuing the family

home at $142,000.

The trial court received extensive testimony regarding the value and

condition of the home. Tom Hammons, a home-renovation expert Ms. Brignac

retained, testified that he inspected the home in May 2025. The trial court

admitted his report, which included numerous photographs, into evidence. Mr.

Hammons opined that the home needed a new roof and repair of extensive termite

damage. Ricardo Gutierrez, an expert real estate appraiser Ms. Brignac retained,

performed four appraisals of the home over nine years. He appraised the home at

$135,000.00 in 2016, $143,000.00 in 2017, $204,000.00 in 2023, and $142,000.00

in 2025. Mr. Gutierrez inspected both the interior and exterior of the home for the

2025 appraisal. He testified that the home was in poor condition. Mr. Gutierrez

testified that if the home had remained in good condition as he observed during the

2016 appraisal, he would have valued it at $247,000.00.

Karla Scott, an expert real estate appraiser Mr. Bajewski retained, appraised

the home in July 2025. Ms. Scott opined the fair market value of the home was

$105,000.00.

The trial court has broad discretion to value and allocate assets and liabilities

in community property partitions. Cosman v. Cosman, 22-0694 (La. App. 1 Cir.

1/10/23), 360 So. 3d 892, 896, writ denied, 23-00299 (La. 5/2/23), 359 So.3d 1272.

Where expert testimony differs, the trier of fact must determine which evidence is

more credible, and an appellate court may not overturn factual findings based on

that determination unless manifest error appears in the record. Id. at 901.

Mr. Bajewski contends the trial court abused its discretion by accepting Mr.

Gutierrez’s valuation because, he argues, Mr. Gutierrez did not consider the

structural problems in the home. Mr. Gutierrez testified that he considered the

26-CA-37 2

condition of the home when he performed the 2025 appraisal. He said there was a

“big difference” in the condition of the home between 2016 and 2025. He took

numerous photographs reflecting the home’s poor condition.

As trier of fact, the trial court credited Mr. Gutierrez’s testimony over Ms.

Scott’s. We find no merit in Mr. Bajewski’s argument that this credibility

determination constituted an abuse of discretion.

Rental value of the home

The trial court awarded Mr. Bajewski use of the family home, and he lived

there until 2023. At the time of trial, he was living with his girlfriend. He argues

the trial court abused its discretion by awarding rental reimbursement from 2011 to

2025 based on a monthly rental rate of $1,100.00 for the entire period. We

disagree.

Mr. Bajewski’s expert, Ms. Scott, testified that the rental value of the home

in 2022 to 2023 was $1,100.00 per month. Mr. Gutierrez testified that if the home

were in good condition, the rental value would be $2,250.00. In her reasons for

judgment, the trial judge stated that when setting the rental reimbursement amount,

she considered the property’s age, size, location, and condition. She noted that the

expert appraisers found it difficult to set a rental value because the property was

one of the few in the area that no one had renovated after the most recent

hurricane. The trial court concluded that Ms. Scott’s testimony and rental

valuation were “the most credible and fair.”

Under the manifest-error standard of review, the appellate court may reverse

the trial court’s factual finding only if no reasonable factual basis supports the

finding and the trial court was clearly wrong. E.C.I. Props. Inc. v. Weber Props.

Jefferson Highway L.L.C., 25-143 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/24/25), 423 So. 3d 165, 173.

The record contains extensive testimony and evidence regarding the home’s

condition over the years, including five appraisals by expert real estate appraisers.

26-CA-37 3

Based on our review of the entire record, we find the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in awarding rental reimbursement of $1,100.00 per month for 175

months.

Mr. Bajewski contends the trial court abused its discretion by awarding a

rental claim for the entire time period because Ms. Brignac did not list a claim for

rental reimbursement in her first detailed descriptive list filed on March 18, 2014.

This claim has no merit.

Ms. Brignac asserted her right to rental reimbursement in her petition for

divorce, filed January 14, 2011, and in her amended petition for divorce, filed

October 26, 2012. Moreover, in the consent judgment both parties entered, they

agreed to grant Mr. Bajewski use and occupancy of the family residence and to

defer rental reimbursement. Parties may agree to defer the adjudication of rental

reimbursement to a later date. La. R.S. 9:374D. Our review of the record shows

Ms. Brignac put Mr. Bajewski on notice from the beginning of the divorce

proceedings that she would seek rental reimbursement for his use and occupancy

of the family home. Although Ms. Brignac did not list rental reimbursement on

her initial detailed descriptive list, she included it in her amended list. A party may

amend a detailed descriptive list. La. R.S. 9:2801(A)(1)(b). Thus, the trial court

did not err in awarding rental reimbursement from the termination of the

community through the judicial partition.

Valuation of the motorcycle

Mr. Bajewski argues the trial court abused its discretion in assessing a value

of $4,765.00 to the motorcycle. Ms. Brignac testified that Mr. Bajewski kept

possession of the motorcycle the couple owned during the marriage. She produced

a Kelley Blue Book document valuing the motorcycle at $4,765.00. Mr. Bajewski

testified that the motorcycle needed repairs and that he took it to a repair shop. He

said the repair cost exceeded the motorcycle’s value, so he “donated it.” Mr.

26-CA-37 4

Bajewski produced no documents supporting this claimed donation. In its reasons

for judgment, the trial court found Ms. Brignac’s testimony regarding the

motorcycle’s value credible and found Mr. Bajewski’s testimony that the

motorcycle had no value not credible.

The trial court occupies a unique position to observe witnesses’ testimony

firsthand and make credibility determinations. Nair v. Nair, 24-220 (La. App. 5

Cir. 12/20/24), 410 So. 3d 874, 882. Where testimony conflicts, an appellate court

should not disturb reasonable credibility determinations or reasonable factual

inferences. Id. Nor may the appellate court simply decide whether it would have

found the facts differently and substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court.

Id. Applying this standard, our review of the record, including the parties’

testimony, confirms the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing the

motorcycle.

Amount of equalizing payment

The trial court awarded an equalizing payment of $169,632.50 to Ms.

Brignac. Both parties agree this calculation is incorrect.

Mr. Bajewski contends that if this Court rejects his arguments regarding the

home’s valuation, the rental reimbursement award, and the motorcycle’s value, the

maximum equalizing award is $132,923.55. However, this argument ignores the

E-Trade IRA and the Guidestone Retirement accounts the parties listed on the joint

detailed descriptive list. Ms. Brignac argues the trial court made a calculation

error, explaining that if the court awards 100% of the IRA and Guidestone

accounts to Mr. Bajewski, the trial court’s calculation differs only slightly—

signifying a mathematical error this Court can correct. She concludes the correct

award amount is $167,290.82. We disagree because the trial court did not decide

how to partition the IRA and Guidestone accounts. Although the parties agreed on

the value of these accounts, they did not agree on how to partition them.

26-CA-37 5

On appellate review, we cannot reconcile the mathematics of the trial court’s

$169,632.50 award with the record. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the

judgment awarding an equalizing payment of $169,632.50 and remand to the trial

court for recalculation. See Yates v. Yates, 22-741 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/2/23), 375

So. 3d 548, 585.

CONCLUSION

For the preceding reasons, we vacate the portion of the judgment awarding

an equalizing payment of $169,632.50 and remand for recalculation of the

equalizing payment. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

26-CA-37 6

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-CA-37
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE NANCY A. MILLER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
DIXON C. BROWN (APPELLANT) JENNIFER C. CARTER (APPELLANT) JAMES E. MOORMAN, III (APPELLEE)

MAILED
NO ATTORNEYS WERE MAILED