Hauswirth v. Shih CA4/1

Filed 2/7/23 Hauswirth v. Shih CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS HAUSWIRTH, D080294

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- 00045533-CU-BC-NC) WENDY SHIH,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert P. Dahlquist, Judge. Affirmed. Dennis Hauswirth, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wendy Shih, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent. Dennis Hauswirth appeals a judgment after court trial. He contends substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings and that he is entitled to a “trial de novo” regarding the formation of a contract between himself and Wendy Shih. We affirm. BACKGROUND Hauswirth sued Shih alleging two causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, and (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing. Hauswirth alleged he agreed to assist Shih with the sale of her property located at 749 Mays Hollow Lane, Encinitas, California 92024 (referred to herein as “Mays Hollow property” or “Encinitas property”) free of charge, in return for commissions on the purchase of replacement property in what Hauswirth referred to as a tax deferred exchange, under Internal Revenue Code section 1031. Hauswirth alleged that on January 28, 2016, Shih e-mailed him stating: “ ‘Dear Dennis, It was such a pleasure working with you. I am very grateful that you are working with me free of charge on the sale of the Mays Hollow property. We will have a chance to work on purchasing listed properties for replacement if and when this deal closes.’ ” Hauswirth responded the same day stating: “ ‘It was great seeing you and Barry [DEFENDANT’S husband] again – looking forward to finding the right properties for you Wendy . . . .’ ” In the joint trial readiness report, Hauswirth asserted that this e-mail exchange was “the contract which created the exclusive relationship.” The complaint stated that over the next few months, Hauswirth worked on the sale of Shih’s Mays Hollow property. Hauswirth also alleged that in February 2016, he began searches, showings, and investigations for replacement properties for Shih to purchase. According to Hauswirth, on or around January 22, 2017, Shih stopped responding to Hauswirth’s inquiries or communications regarding potential properties for Shih to purchase. Hauswirth alleged that on January 23, 2017, he met with Shih, at which time Shih “unilaterally terminated their relationship,” preventing Hauswirth from receiving compensation from Shih’s purchase of replacement property. According to Hauswirth’s complaint, on May 2, 2017, Shih closed escrow on the sale of her Mays Hollow property; on May 3, 2017, Shih closed