Vescomb v. Newcomb CA2/6

Filed 8/31/15 Vescomb v. Newcomb CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

DAVID M. VESCO, 2d Civil No. B252548 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-00384846- Plaintiff and Respondent, CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

TAWNE MICHELE NEWCOMB,

Defendant and Appellant.

TAWNE MICHELE NEWCOMB, 2d Civil No. B255816 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2012-00415972- Plaintiff and Appellant, CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

DAVID M. VESCO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Tawne Michele Newcomb appeals a judgment entered in favor of David M. Vesco following a court trial. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1987, Vesco, a medical doctor, and Newcomb, a pharmaceutical representative, met at a Michigan hospital where they were employed. They began dating and later moved to Southern California. In 1992, Vesco purchased a home located at 3190 Toulouse Circle in Thousand Oaks. The following year, Vesco and Newcombe moved there and eventually had two children. Vesco held title to the property as a single man and paid the mortgage, property taxes, and homeowner's insurance from his earnings as a physician. He maintained a separate bank account and separate credit cards, and did not commingle his assets with Newcomb. Vesco and Newcomb also filed separate income tax returns. In 1989, Vesco started an immediate-care medical clinic in Calabasas. Newcomb worked at the clinic and was paid as an employee. She did not have an ownership interest in the medical clinic or in Vesco's medical practice. Newcomb maintained her own bank account and, at times, was employed by other employers. In 1999, Vesco received notice of a potential lawsuit against him based upon a patient's death. Upon the advice of an attorney, Vesco transferred title to the Thousand Oaks home to Newcomb, with the understanding that she would reconvey the property to him upon his request. A malpractice lawsuit was not filed, however, and Vesco later demanded that Newcomb reconvey the property. She refused and asserted that the property was a gift. In 2010, the parties' relationship deteriorated and Vesco moved into an apartment. Newcomb and the children continued to live at the Thousand Oaks home, and Vesco continued to pay the mortgage, property taxes, and property insurance. He testified that he paid the property expenses "to give stability to [his] children." On November 4, 2010, Vesco filed a verified complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract, constructive trust, and resulting trust. He alleged that Newcomb breached an oral agreement to reconvey the Thousand Oaks property upon his request. (Vesco v. Newcomb (Super. Ct. Ventura County, No. 56-2010-00384846).) In