Oakley v. Oakley

Filed 8/9/06 Oakley v. Oakley CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Charles F. Oakley appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court determined that a purchase-money resulting trust had not been established in his favor. He contends that the trial court's conclusion was erroneous, and that the court further erred in denying his motion for a new trial. We will affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Charles F. Oakley (Charles) and respondent Katharine Ann Oakley (Katharine) were married in 1971. In 1984, they began living apart, and in 1992, they instituted divorce proceedings in Mariposa County Superior Court.

A marital settlement agreement (MSA), which they signed on February 3, 1992, set forth the proposed disposition of their property. Their daughter Kathleen (Katie) was 14 years old at the time and lived with Katharine; their daughter Kristin was an adult and resided elsewhere.

A. The Marital Settlement Agreement

The MSA awarded to Katharine, as her sole and separate property but subject to existing liens and encumbrances, both the house in Pleasanton where she was living with Katie (House) and a condominium in Pleasanton that was rented at the time to a third party (Condo). Charles was awarded other real property in Pleasanton, which he sold. Additional property awarded to Katharine and Charles is not germane to this appeal.

Under the MSA, Charles and Katharine shared joint legal custody of Katie, with Katharine maintaining physical custody. The MSA provided that Charles and Katharine â€