Marriage of Tuchfarber

Filed 1/9/07  Marriage of Tuchfarber CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Katrina West, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Lee Amidon and Dean H. McVay for Appellant.

            Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, Thomas N. Jacobson and Eugene Kim for Respondent, Ann M. Stanton Becker.

            No appearance for Respondent William Scott Tuchfarber.

            Carol Elaine Tuchfarber^[1] appeals from a judgment in favor of Ann M. Stanton Becker (Becker) awarding her title to a parcel of real property located at 16950 Lurelane Street in Fontana, California (the Property).  Carol claims that the judgment was erroneous because the trial court made inappropriate factual findings, not based on substantial evidence.  We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

            Carol filed a petition to dissolve her nearly 11-year marriage to Scott on June 5, 2002.  On September 26, 2002, Becker filed a complaint against Carol and Scott seeking declaratory relief, to quiet title and damages for waste with regard to the ownership of the Property.  In her complaint, Becker alleged that she had received the Property by way of an August 2, 1990, deed from Craig, Scott's brother and her son, who passed away in 1991, and Nadine Maresca.  In 1991 Becker agreed with Scott and Carol that they could live on the Property in exchange for making the mortgage payment.  On October 15, 1991, Becker deeded the Property to Scott and Carol, husband and wife as joint tenants so that they could live in the house and obtain their own financing.  However, Becker retained a quitclaim deed executed by Scott and Carol in her favor on the same day.  The grant deed was recorded on December 19, 1991.  Later, Becker allowed Scott and Carol to rent out and manage the Property and keep any proceeds of the rental.  On May 21, 2002, Becker recorded the quitclaim deed.

            On February 6, 2003, Becker's complaint to quiet title and for declaratory relief was filed in the dissolution action.  On February 24, 2003, the trial court granted Carol's motion to join Becker in the marital dissolution.  Carol asserted that the quitclaim deed was not intended to transfer the Property back to Becker, but was merely security for a $14,000 debt that Carol and Scott owed to Becker for Craig's funeral expenses as evidenced by a November 1, 1991, promissory note.  Therefore, she claimed the Property was actually community property under the October 15, 1991, grant deed and that Scott disclaimed his interest in it by asserting that it belonged to his mother, Becker.

            On April 20 and 21, 2005, a trial was held concerning the parties' respective claims to the Property.  At the close of Carol's evidence, Becker moved for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8.  The trial court set a date for ruling on the motion, allowed briefing, and thereafter, on June 17, 2005, issued its ruling in favor of Becker's claim.  Carol then filed a motion for a new trial or to set aside the judgment on June 24, 2005, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.  Judgment was entered in Becker's favor on July 29, 2005, while Carol's motion was pending, and notice of entry of judgment was served on August 19, 2005.  This appeal was filed prior to the hearing on the motion for a new trial or to set aside the judgment.

Discussion

            When reviewing a judgment entered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 we defer to the factual findings of the trial court and will not disturb them so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.  Our power â€