Beltz v. Brown CA1/4

Filed 2/27/13 Beltz v. Brown CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

ELLIN BELTZ, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, Respondent. A132047

v. (Humboldt County JUSTIN HOBART BROWN, Super. Ct. No. DR080097) Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION In this real estate dispute, respondent Ellin Beltz (Beltz) filed a complaint against appellant Justin Hobart Brown (Brown) for specific performance of a contract for sale of real property. Brown answered and filed a cross-complaint against Beltz alleging numerous causes of action, including one to recover the fair rental value of the real property which he claimed Beltz “wrongfully occupied.” Brown appeals from a judgment following a court trial in which the court declined to rule in favor of either party, and concluded that each party should bear his or her own attorney fees and costs. On appeal, Brown makes numerous contentions, challenging both the trial court’s procedural and substantive rulings. We conclude Brown has waived his contentions on appeal because he has: (1) not provided an adequate record for us to review his contentions; (2) not provided required citations to the record on appeal in support of his

1

assertions of fact and procedure; and (3) made insufficient substantive legal analysis in support of his contentions. Consequently we affirm the judgment. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We first point out that this court has no reporter’s transcript of the proceedings below. Instead, Brown has decided to proceed by settled statement, which was received by this court on December 14, 2011. (See California Rules of Court, rule 8.137.) The settled statement does not contain a factual summary; therefore, we have attempted to piece together the facts pertinent to Brown’s contentions on appeal from various documents provided in the clerk’s transcript. On November 21, 2007, the parties executed a document entitled “Real Estate and Business Purchase Contract” (the contract) for the sale/purchase of real property, personal property and intellectual property. The real property is the Hobart Brown Gallery (the Gallery) at 393 Main Street, Ferndale, California. The contract price was $225,000. Brown is the son of Hobart Brown, deceased, and he signed the contract as trustee of the Hobart Brown Living Trust. Brown’s sister, Emily Thompson, signed the contract as a beneficiary of the trust. The contract specifically grants to Beltz possession of the property in return for her operation of the Gallery and payment of the “existing first mortgage . . . current property taxes, insurance, repairs and maintenance.” In the event of a dispute, the contract also contains a standard attorney fees provision. When the Gallery was sold to Beltz, it was encumbered by substantial liens, including $13,000 in past due realty taxes and $57,000 owed to the Small Business Administration. Pursuant to the contract, Beltz took possession of the Gallery and operated it commencing November 24, 2007. However, when it came time to execute the required escrow documents, Brown refused because of a disagreement about specified artwork and personal property that had been in Beltz’s possession due to her operation of the Gallery. These items are listed in a document referred to as Exhibit A. On January 31, 2008, Beltz filed a suit for specific performance of the parties’ contract. On September 8, 2008, Brown filed a cross-complaint against Beltz seeking,