Newcomb v. Vesco CA2/6

Filed 8/31/15 Newcomb v. Vesco CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TAWNE MICHELE NEWCOMB, 2d Civil No. B254009 (Super. Ct. No. D342814) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

DAVID M. VESCO,

Defendant and Respondent.

Tawne Michele Newcomb appeals an order of the family law court imposing $20,000 sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271, and $69,364.91 reimbursement expenses in favor of David M. Vesco. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

In 1987, Vesco, a medical doctor, met Newcomb, a pharmaceutical representative, at a Michigan hospital where they were employed. Vesco was then married but separated from his wife. Vesco and Newcomb 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 Newcomb moved there and eventually had

1 We take judicial notice of the appellate record in the pending appeal, Vesco v. Newcomb, Case No. B252548 (consolidated by prior order with Case No. B255816). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459.)

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. On February 7, 2000, Vesco petitioned a sister-state to dissolve his longstanding marriage. On September 19, 2000, the sister-state court entered a default judgment dissolving the marriage. 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 December 22, 2010, Newcomb, represented by counsel, filed a dissolution of marriage petition. The petition stated that she and Vesco had married on July 29, 1987, and that there were two minor children of the marriage. In a declaration filed later, Newcomb stated that she and Vesco had married in 1987 in Michigan; in a church in the Virgin Islands during their 1987 honeymoon; in a church in Los Angeles on February 14, 2000; and again in a church in Los Angeles on September 28, 2000. Vesco responded and disputed the existence of any valid marriage to Newcomb.