Filed 8/31/15 Vescomb v. Newcomb CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DAVID M. VESCO,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TAWNE MICHELE NEWCOMB,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Civil No. B252548

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-00384846-

CU-OR-VTA)

(Ventura County)

TAWNE MICHELE NEWCOMB,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DAVID M. VESCO,

 Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civil No. B255816

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2012-00415972-

CU-OR-VTA)

(Ventura County)

Tawne Michele Newcomb appeals a judgment entered in favor of David M. 

Vesco following a court trial. We affirm. 
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 1987, Vesco, a medical doctor, and Newcomb, a pharmaceutical 

representative, met at a Michigan hospital where they were employed. They began

dating and later moved to Southern California.

In 1992, Vesco purchased a home located at 3190 Toulouse Circle in 

Thousand Oaks. The following year, Vesco and Newcombe moved there and eventually 

had two children. Vesco held title to the property as a single man and paid the mortgage, 

property taxes, and homeowner's insurance from his earnings as a physician. He 

maintained a separate bank account and separate credit cards, and did not commingle his 

assets with Newcomb. Vesco and Newcomb also filed separate income tax returns.

In 1989, Vesco started an immediate-care medical clinic in Calabasas. 

Newcomb worked at the clinic and was paid as an employee. She did not have an 

ownership interest in the medical clinic or in Vesco's medical practice. Newcomb 

maintained her own bank account and, at times, was employed by other employers.

In 1999, Vesco received notice of a potential lawsuit against him based 

upon a patient's death. Upon the advice of an attorney, Vesco transferred title to the 

Thousand Oaks home to Newcomb, with the understanding that she would reconvey the 

property to him upon his request. A malpractice lawsuit was not filed, however, and 

Vesco later demanded that Newcomb reconvey the property. She refused and asserted 

that the property was a gift. 

In 2010, the parties' relationship deteriorated and Vesco moved into an 

apartment. Newcomb and the children continued to live at the Thousand Oaks home, and 

Vesco continued to pay the mortgage, property taxes, and property insurance. He

testified that he paid the property expenses "to give stability to [his] children." 

On November 4, 2010, Vesco filed a verified complaint alleging causes of 

action for breach of contract, constructive trust, and resulting trust. He alleged that 

Newcomb breached an oral agreement to reconvey the Thousand Oaks property upon his

request. (Vesco v. Newcomb (Super. Ct. Ventura County, No. 56-2010-00384846).) In 
3

2012, Newcomb then filed a complaint alleging causes of action for breach of contract, 

fraud, and a claim pursuant to Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 674 [nonmarital 

parties may agree to pool their earnings and hold property acquired during their 

relationship according to laws regarding community property]. (Newcomb v. Vesco

(Super. Ct. Ventura County, No. 56-2012-00415972).) The trial court consolidated the 

two actions for trial.

Following a court trial, the court decided that Vesco acted to defraud a 

potential creditor when he transferred title to the Thousand Oaks property to Newcomb. 

(Civ. Code, § 3439.04, subd. (a).) The court concluded that Vesco had unclean hands 

and it entered judgment in favor of Newcomb. (Vesco v. Newcomb, supra, No. 56-2010-

00384846.) The court then decided that Newcomb did not establish her contractual, 

fraud, or Marvin claims, and it entered judgment in favor of Vesco. (Newcomb v. Vesco, 

supra, No. 56-2012-00415972.)

Newcomb, in propria persona, appeals the judgment denying her Marvin

claims, among others. Vesco does not respond. 

DISCUSSION

An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error and show such error by 

citation to the record and any supporting authorities. (Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad 

Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 126.) In other words, review is limited to issues that 

have been adequately raised and briefed. (Ibid.) A reviewing court need not furnish 

argument or search the record to ascertain whether support for appellant's contentions 

exists. (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368.) "One cannot simply say the 

court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why." (Ibid.) Contentions 

that are raised without supporting authorities and citations to the record may be deemed 

abandoned. (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699.)

These rules apply equally to parties represented by counsel and parties 

appearing in propria persona. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) 

A party appearing in propria persona "'is to be treated like any other party and is entitled 
4

to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.'" (Nwosu v. 

Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 ["pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of 

procedure"].) 

Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 660, 674, held that nonmarital partners 

may expressly or impliedly agree to pool all or part of their earnings and hold title to 

property according to the laws of community property. The burden rested upon 

Newcomb to establish her contractual claims pursuant to a Marvin theory. Viewing the 

evidence in light of the judgment, the trial court properly found that the parties had no 

express or implied agreement to pool earnings or hold property jointly or in common. 

(Whitney v. Montegut (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 906, 912 [general rule of sufficiency of the 

evidence to support a factual determination].)

The judgment is affirmed. Newcomb shall bear costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
5

Mark S. Borrell, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Tawne Michele Newcomb, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.