Vos v. Calhoon CA3

Filed 4/3/14 Vos v. Calhoon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

SELWYN D.J. VOS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C070647

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCV25940)

KENNETH CALHOON et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Selwyn D.J. Vos (Vos) brings this pro se appeal from the judgment entered in favor of respondents Kenneth Calhoon and his employer, Golden West Real Estate, Inc. (collectively Calhoon), after the trial court sustained Calhoon’s demurrer to Vos’s third amended complaint without leave to amend. Because Vos has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, we cannot conclude the trial court erred. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The subject of the lawsuit is Vos’s 1999 purchase of 40 acres of real property in El Dorado County. The most recent pleading in the appellate record, the second amended complaint, names as defendants Vos’s agents (demurring defendants Calhoon), the seller

1

of the property (R.M. Walz Trust), the seller’s agents (defendants Linda Gigliotti and Lyon & Associates), and the entity (Property I.D. Corporation) retained to prepare an earthquake report identifying the location of adjacent fault lines. The second amended complaint contains six causes of action. The gist of Vos’s claim is that Calhoon participated in an “illegal sale” of the property to Vos, in that they failed to disclose or intentionally concealed that the real property lies on an earthquake fault line; the property contains naturally occurring asbestos; and 25 of the 40 acres consist of Native American archaeological sites. As a result, the property cannot be developed, and Vos has been exposed to asbestos and the corresponding danger and fear of mesothelioma. The second amended complaint seeks rescission of the contract by which Vos purchased the property, reformation of his title to the property, injunctive relief, and money damages. Vos filed a third amended complaint, which is not in the record on appeal.1 Calhoon demurred to the complaint; their demurrer is not in the record on appeal. Following a hearing, the transcript of which is not in the record on appeal, the trial court issued a ruling sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing Vos’s action as to Calhoon. In so doing, the court ruled Vos’s first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty fails to state a valid cause of action, and is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; Vos’s second cause of action for fraud fails to state a