Velazquez v. Dubrova CA2/4

Filed 8/19/14 Velazquez v. Dubrova CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

RAUL VELAZQUEZ, B246252

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC110253) v.

ALEKSANDRA DUBROVA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed. Knickerbocker Law Group and Richard L. Knickerbocker for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael P. Rubin & Associates, Michael P. Rubin and Stephanie Silva for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Raul Velazquez filed suit against defendant and respondent Aleksandra Dubrova, alleging a one-half interest in a condominium where appellant and respondent had been cohabitants. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant has elected to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings in the trial court, a procedure known as a judgment roll appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121(b)(1)(C); Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324; Hillman v. Leland E. Burns, Inc. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 860, 864.) In a judgment roll appeal, “‘unless error appears on the face of the record, all intendments will be in support of the judgment. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Schwartz v. Labow (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 417, 429, fn. 11 (Schwartz).) We find no error and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant and respondent cohabited until late 2002. In November 2010, appellant filed a complaint against respondent, seeking quiet title and partition of the condominium at issue. Appellant alleged that he and respondent cohabited in New York from 1996 to 1998 and then agreed to move together to California. He alleged that they agreed to purchase the condominium in 2002 and that the property was placed in respondent’s name to help obtain financing and to allow her to take tax deductions. According to appellant, they agreed that if they ever decided to sell the property, respondent would execute documents to indicate their co-ownership. In November 2002, respondent moved to Italy. Appellant alleged that thereafter, he made the mortgage payments directly to the lender and paid the insurance premiums to the insurance company. He further alleged that in July 2009, he asked respondent to agree to sell the property and split the proceeds, and