Galea v. Almquist CA3

Filed 3/25/24 Galea v. Almquist CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

JOE GALEA, C095972

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34-2018- 00243538CU-BC-GDS) v.

CHERYL L. ALMQUIST,

Defendant and Appellant.

SUMMARY OF THE APPEAL On April 7, 2022, the Sacramento Superior Court entered a judgment against appellant and defendant Cheryl L. Almquist in favor of respondent and plaintiff Joe Galea. Among other things, the judgment includes $79,200 due on Galea’s first cause of action against Almquist, plus interest on that sum at the rate of 10 percent per annum from October 30, 2018, through March 30, 2022, for a total of $106,260.

1

In her opening brief Almquist refers to a “final [judgment] in favor of Joseph Galea in the amount of $97,015.82 (November 18, 2021).” This is likely a reference to a tentative ruling and proposed statement of decision that was filed on November 18, 2021 (tentative ruling), which Almquist attached to the Civil Case Information Statement she filed in this court, but to which she does not cite in her brief. In her notice of appeal, filed on March 24, 2022, Almquist identified the judgment from which she appeals as entered on February 22, 2022. However, the April 7, 2022, judgment is the only one we have been provided as part of the record. To the extent we can discern Almquist’s position based on her opening brief, it appears that in this appeal she disputes the amount awarded on the first cause of action. We will affirm. Here, Almquist has failed to provide an adequate argument or record. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The record in this appeal does not include a copy of the complaint. The trial court conducted a bench trial in October 2021. Based on the testimony and arguments at trial, and on the tentative ruling, it appears the first cause of action was a breach of contract cause of action that stemmed from a $90,000 transfer of funds that Galea made or arranged to have made to Almquist in June 2017 while they were living together in a romantic relationship. Galea testified that the transfer was a loan whose terms were agreed to verbally. Almquist testified the transfer was not a loan, but a gift of sorts, as a way for Galea, who had just obtained a settlement in a legal action, to pay Almquist back for all the living expenses she incurred over the years they lived together. At the close of trial, the trial court asked for supplemental briefs on the contract claim stating it was interested in (1) whether the parties really contemplated a contract;