Filed 8/24/15 Soohoo v. Capstone Coatings & W indows CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

LINDA SOOHOO , Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CAPSTONE COATINGS & WINDOWS,
Defendant and Appellant. B 257288
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GC047039 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura A.
Matz , Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Duane R. Folk e and Duane R. Folke for Defendant and Appellant. Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah, Inc., Richard Mah and
Dustin Lozano for Plaintiff and Respondent

.

_________________________2

Defendant an d appellant Capstone Coatings & Windows, Inc. (Capstone) a ppeals the judgment entered against it following a bench trial, in which the court (1) ruled Capstone must return plaintiff and respondent Linda Soohoo’s down payment for
windows and doors she ordered from Capstone, and (2) entered judgment against Capston e on its cross

- complaint for abuse of process and n egligent interference with

prospe c tive economic advantage. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because Capstone has elected to proceed with this appeal on the clerk’s transcript, without a repo rter’s transcript of the trial or an agreed statement of facts, we take the
relevant facts from the trial court’s statement of decision. ( Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
1. Soohoo’s contract with Capstone In 2007, Soohoo wa s building a new home in San Gabriel. After Soohoo visited Cap stone’s booth at a Los Angeles home s how, Capstone’s owner, Daniel e Kenney, contacted Soohoo regarding the sale of Weathers hield doors and windows for the new
home. On Wednesday, March 21, 20 07, Soohoo signed “a written contract in the form of an invoice” while she and Kenney were at the jobsite. In “very small print” at the bottom of the first page, the document stated there was a three

- day rescission period, after which
a 25 percent cancell ation fee would apply. The document also stated that the cancellation right was explained in an attached notice of cancellation for m . In fact, the “notice of cancellation form” was not attached, and was never provided to Soohoo. Kenney promised he wou l d provide Soohoo with a schedule of the windows and doors that afternoon, but only after she signed the contract and paid the deposit. She signed the contract and authorized a $29,5 00 charge on her credit card , representing
50 percent of the purchase price

. However, Kenney did not provide the promised
schedule . Soohoo unsuccessfully tried to reach Kenney several times that Thursday and Friday. Troubled by the lack of responsiveness, she decided over the weekend to cancel
the contract.3

On Monday, March 2 6, 2007, Soohoo called Capstone and spoke with employee Robert Alva for over 40 minutes. Alva attempted to dissuade her from canceling and apologized for Kenney’s unavailability. Soohoo, however, remained steadfast in her
resolve to cancel. Soohoo calle d Capstone again the next day to confirm her cancellation and inquire about the return of her deposit . She spoke with an employee named Lora. Soohoo called again on March 28, 2007 and reached Kenney. Kenney stated her cancellation was untimely and he wa s entitled to a 25 percent cancellation fee. In response, Soohoo sent an email dated March 28, 2007, following up on their conversation and reiterating that she had cancelled with Alva on March 26 and with Lora on March 27. In an effort to avoid losing he r deposit, Soohoo spoke with Capstone employees over the next two weeks, but eventually bought her windows and doors elsewhere. Capstone apparently disputed that Soohoo actually sent the email on March 28 or cancelled the contract during her conversations with Capstone personnel. However, it was undisputed that on May 10, 2007, Capstone received a document from Soohoo cancelling the

contract. Capstone did not place an order for the windows and door s and never delivered any windows or doors to Soohoo’s jo bsite.
2. The ensuing litigation On May 23, 2013, Soohoo filed her first amended complaint, 1 which alleged

causes o f action for breach of contract; rescission pursuant to Civil Code section 1689.7 (governing home solicitation contracts), on the ground th e contract did not contain the required notice of her right to cancel; violation of Business and Professions Code section
7159 (governing home improvement contracts) ; unjust enrichment; and violation of
Business and Professi ons Code section 17200 (unfair c ompetition). Capstone answer ed with a general denial and asserted 11 affirmative defenses, and cross

- complained against

1 Soohoo’s original complaint was filed in 2011, and a default judgment was entered against Capstone. The d efault was set aside on March 7 , 2013.4

Soohoo for abuse of process and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.
3. The trial court’s ruling In June 2014, the trial court conducted a two

- day bench trial on the matter. In a
14

- page statement of decision, the court found for Soohoo on her second cause of action
for rescission under Civil Code section s 1689.5 and 1689.7

. It reasoned that the contract
between Soohoo and Capstone was a “home solicitation contract” within the meaning of
Civil Code section 1689.5, subdivision (a). Because Capstone never provided Soohoo
with a “Notice of Cancellation” form and oral advisement of her cancellation right as required by that statute, Civil Code section 1689.7 , subdivision (g), allowed her to cancel the contract at any time, even after the expiration of the contractual three

- day period.
The court found that because Soohoo cancelled in writing at least by May 10, 2007 , she

was entitled to the return of her entire down payment of $29,500. Because the ruling on the second cause of action was dispositive, the trial court did not reach the merits of Soohoo’s other causes of action. 2 It further found Capstone had failed t o establish a prima facie case on its cross

- complaint , and entered judgment in favor of Soohoo

. Capstone filed a timely notice of appeal

. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104,
subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
1. Capstone fails to articulate a claim of reversible er ror.

a. Standard of review The most fundamental principle of appellate review is that a judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. ( People v. JTH Tax, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1259 ; Godfrey v. Oakland Port Services Corp. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1267,
1283 .) “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” ( Denham v.

2 The court explained in d icta that judgment “would be denied” on the contract cause of action because the cancellation was not communicated to Capstone until the fourth business day, and was therefore untimely under the contract’s terms.5

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; Lister v. Bowen (2013) 215 Cal .A pp.4th 319, 337.) The appellant must affirmatively show error by an adequate record. ( Gonzalez v.
Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App. 4th 969, 976.) To demonstrate error, an appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to auth ority and to facts in the
record

. ( Lister v. Bowen, supra, at p. 337.)
b. The trial court’s decision was not erroneous

. Capstone argues the trial court “applied the incorrect law” to the facts. We disagree. The trial court correctly found Civil Code sections 1689.5 and 1689.7 dispositive. Civil Code s ection 1689.5, subdivision (a) defines “ ‘[ h ] ome solicitation

contract or offer ’ ” as “any contract

. . . for the sale, lease, or rental of goods or services or both, made at other than appropriate trad e premises in an amount of twenty

- five dollars ($25) or more, including any interest or service charges. ” “ ‘ Appropriate trade premises ’ ” is defined as “ premises where either the owner or seller normally carries on a business, or where goods are normally offered or exposed for sale in the course of a business carried on at those premises. ” (Civ. Code, § 1689.5, subd. (b).) “ ‘ Goods ’ ”
includes “ tangible chattels bought for use primarily for personal, family, or household

purposes,

. . . including goods that, at the time of the sale or subsequently, are to be so affixed to real property as to become a part of the real property whether or not severable
therefrom . . . .” (Civ . Code, § 1689.5, subd. (c).) “ ‘ Services ’ ” is defined as, inter alia,

“ work, l abor and services, including, but not limited to, services furnished in connection with the repair, restoration, alteration, or impr ovement of residential premises . . . .” (Civ. Code, § 1689.5, subd. (d) ; see generally Handyman Connection of Sacramento, Inc.
v. Sands (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 867, 882

- 883.) Here, the trial court found the contract between Soohoo and Capstone “was, without a doubt, a home solicitation contract, meeting the statutory requirements for that designation.” The court’s reasoning was sound. Capstone agreed to provide “goods”

– doors and windows

– for Soohoo’s residence , and “services,” i.e., the installation of frames for stained glass windows. The purchase price of $59,000 far exceeded the

statuto ry threshold. T he contract was executed at Soohoo’s “jobsite where her house was6

under construction, not at Capstone ’ s normal place of business or trade premises.” (See
Louis Luskin & Sons , Inc. v. Samovit z (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 533, 535 [ Civil Code

“ section 1689.5, subdivision (a) cl early and unambiguously makes the statute applicable to any contract for the sale of goods or service s made anywhere other than the ‘appropriate trade premises’ of the seller ”].) A seller of goods or services under a home solicitation contract is statutor ily required to provide certain notices to the buyer. As pertinent here , Civil Code section
1689.7 r equires that
, at the time the contract is executed , “the agreement or offer to purchase shall be accompanied by a completed form in duplicate, captioned ‘N otice of Cancellation’ which shall be attached to the agreement ,” setting forth the purchaser’s right to cancel and how to exercise that right, and stating the applicable cancellation deadline. (Civ. Code, § 1689.7, subds. (c), (f).) S ubdivision (f) requ ires that the seller “shall inform the buyer orally of his or her right to cancel and the requirement that cancellation be in writing, at the time the home solicitation contract or offer is executed.” “Until the seller has complied ” with these requiremen t s, “the buyer may cancel the home solicitation contract or offer.” (Civ. Code, § 1689. 7, subd. (g).) I t was undisputed that Capstone never provided the cancellation form, and there was no evidence Kenney orally informed Soohoo of her cancellation right a t the time the contract was executed. Accordingly, the trial court properly found Soohoo was entitled to, and did, cancel the
contract after the three

- day period, and was entitled to the return of her entire deposit. (See Weatherall Aluminum Products Co

. v. Scott (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 245, 247 [if notifications required by Civil Code section 1689.7 are not given, defendant retain s a right to cancel].) Capstone makes a variety of conclusory, inchoate arguments aimed at showing
Civil Code sections 1689.5 a nd 1689.7 are inapplicable or were misinterpreted by the
trial court . None demonstrate error. First, Capstone posits that as a window supplier, it is governed by “Business [and] Professions Code section 22901 et seq.” and Business and Professions Code sec tion
19074. Business and Professions Code section 19 074 provides: “ This chapter does not7

apply to the manufacturer of insulating window or door glass or products containing insulating window or door glass. ” This section is no help to Capstone for at lea st two

reasons. First, Capstone was not acting as a manufacturer when it contracted wi th Soohoo. Indeed, i n its brief, Capstone a vers it “ order[ed] from the manufacturer the subject windows and doors.” (Italic s added.) Second , Business and Professions Code
section 19 074 only pertains to “this chapter”

– i.e., chapter 3 of division 8 of the Business and Professions Code. The dispositive statutes applied by the trial court were sections
1689.5 and 1689.7 of the Civil Code. Business and Professions Code section 19 074 therefore has no bearing on their applicability. Capstone has failed to show how section
19 074 has any relevance to this case , let alone demonstrates error. Capstone’s quotation of Business and Professions Code section 22901,
subdivision ( c), is equally curious. That section states: “ ‘Claim’ means a dealer’ s claim
for reimbursement from a supplier for labor and materials expended by the dealer to meet the requirements of the supplier’s warranty agreement with a consumer of the supplier’s products if the dealer has complied with the supplier’s then

- existing written policies and procedures for warranties and warranty claims.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22901, subd. (c).) Capstone fails to explain how this statute has any possi ble relevance or demonstrates

error

. Next, Capstone urges that the document at issue was an invoice, not a contract, presumably on the theory that invoices fall outside the purview of Civil Code sections 1689.5 and 1689.7. But the trial court made a finding of fact that the document was a contract, stating in its written decision that Soohoo “signed a written contract in the form of an invoice” and that “[t]his contract was, without a doubt, a home solicitation
contract.” The trial court’s findings are binding on this co urt. As noted ante, Capstone has elected to proceed without designating the reporter’s transcript a s part of the appellate record. In such a “judgment roll” appeal based on a clerk’ s transcript, “ every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgm ent and all facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed. The sufficiency of the evidence is not open to
review. The trial court’ s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be8

supported by substantial evidence and are binding on the appellate court, unless
reversib le error appears on the record.” ( Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996)
50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324

- 325 ; Krueger v. Bank of America, supra , 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 207 ; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.) Here, error is not apparent on the record provided. To the contrary,

e ven the limited record before us belies Capstone’s argument. The first page of the
document in question refers to “this agreement ,” and the third page states , “ This contract shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the state of
California. This contract . . . shall constitute the entire agreement.” (Italics added.) Averring that there was no “home solicita tion” involved
, that the transaction was analogous to a purchase made at a hardware store, and that Soohoo should be deemed a “sophisticated consumer” who acted as her own contractor, Capstone suggests Civil Code
sections 1689.5 and 1689.7 should not apply

. It urges that these statutes were enacted to protect consumers from the “high

- pressure techniqu es of door

- to

- door salespersons ,” in
contrast to the facts here. Capstone neglects to cite legal authority or adequate citation to the record in support of i ts point

. Courts have rejected the notion that Civil Code sections
1689.5 and 1689.7 are limited to the door

- to

- door salesperson context. (See Louis Luskin & Sons, Inc. v. Samovitz, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 536 [“Although the home
solicitation statute is commonly thought of as protecting consumers from the high pressure sales tactics of door

- to

- door solicitors, the clear, unambiguous language of the statutes give s it a much broader application” , fn. omitted ]; Williams v. Kapil ow & So n, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161 ; Weatherall Aluminum Products Co. v. Scott, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at p. 248 .) Although it is not entirely clear, Capstone appears to suggest that Weatherall Aluminum Products Co. v. Scott, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d 245, holds that compliance with
Civil Code section 1689.7
, subdivisions (c) and (f) is excused where the contract contains a statement regarding cancellation , apart from the required “Notice of Cancellation”
form

. Capstone seems to be referring to the small

- print statement at the bottom of the contract stating “ [ y ] ou the buyer may cancel this transaction at any time prior to midnight9

of the third business day after the date of this transaction.” But this statement did not comply with the statutory requirements (see Civ. Code, § 16 89.7, subd. (c)), and it is n ot clear that Capstone raised this point below. Capstone does not elaborate on this argument, and n othing in Weatherall supports it

. Puzzlingly, Capstone a rgue s that the trial court inappropriately resorted to
consideration of extrinsic aids and policy considerations when interpr eting Civil Code
sections 1689.5 an d 1689.7 in a manner adverse to it. The t rial court did no such thing. It simply applied the plain language of s ect ions 1689.5 and 1689.7

. It is Capstone’s burde n to affirmatively demonstrate reversible error by supporting
its argument s with legal analysis and demonstrating how the purported errors require
reversal. “ ‘To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations t o authority and citations to facts in the record that support the
claim of error

. ’ [Citation.] ‘[C]onclusory claims of error will fail.’ [Citation.]” ( Lister v. Bowen, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 337; Cahill v. S an Diego Gas & Electric
Co. (201 1) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956

- 957 .) A n appellant must “ ‘present [his ] cause systematical ly and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised . . . of the exa ct question under consideration,
instead of b eing compelled to extricate it from the mass.’ ” ( Opdyk v. California Horse
R aci ng Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830

- 1831, fn. 4.) This Capstone has failed to do. For the most part, Capstone’s brief lacks both citations to pertinent authority and
coh erent legal argument demonstrating error. 3 It has failed to demonstrate reversible

error.

3 Soohoo argues that Capstone has abandon ed its appeal because the opening brief fails to raise a claim of reversible error, articulate pertinent argument, or present authority on the points made. ( In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Soohoo has also moved to dismiss Capstone’s appeal on the same grounds. We deferred ruling on the motion until considering the merits. Although we agree that Capstone’s brief suffers from significant defects, we decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss the appeal and instead rule on merits.10

2. Quantum meruit Capstone complains that the trial court “should have also looked to the Seller’s claim(s) for quantum meruit quasi contractual relief such that Ca pstone should be allowed to recover the reasonable value of the benefits conferred on Buyer by Seller’s performance.” Appellant avers Soohoo “has the bene fit of several thousand dollars ’ worth of home improvements,” i.e., “windows and doors blocked out, o rdered, and schematics set in the assistance of the buyer.”
But th e trial court did not consider any claim for quantum meruit because Capstone never alleged such a claim in its cross

- complaint or its response to Soohoo’s complaint

. The trial court’s stat ement of decision does not address the issue, and there is no showing Capstone somehow raised it at trial. Capsto ne cannot raise this claim for the first time on appeal. ( Overgaard v. Johnson ( 1977 ) 68 Cal.App.3d 821, 826 [“ A party may not for the first time on appeal change the theory of the cause of action, and issues
not raised in the trial court cannot be rais ed for the first time on appeal”].)
E ven if this issue was properly before us, nothing in the record would support recovery under a quantum mer uit theory. “ ‘ Quantum meruit refers to the w ell

established principle that “ the law implies a promise to pay for services performed under circumstances disclosing that they were not gratuitously rendered.” [Citation.] ’ ” ( Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, F itzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pa store (2008)
162 Cal.App.4th 1331, 134 4.) To recover in quantum meruit, a party must show the

“ ‘circumstances were such that “ the services were rendered under some understanding or expectation of both parties that compensa tion therefor was to be made.” ’ [Citation.] The burden is on the person making the quantum meruit claim to show the value of his or
her services . . . .” ( Ibid. ) Capstone has not made such a showing. The trial court found
the windows and doors were n either ordered nor delivered, and its finding is binding here. (See Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions , supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 924; Krueger v. Bank of America, supra , 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 207 .) Nothing in the record suggests11

Capstone provided anything of value to Soohoo, let alone the “ several thousand doll ars’ worth of home improvements ” alleged

. 4

3. Other arguments To the extent Capstone intends to raise other arguments, they have been waived by Capstone’s failure to articulate pertinent authority a nd provide intelligible legal argument. ( In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830; Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co

. , supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 ; Badie v. Bank of
America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784

- 785; Berger v. God den ( 1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119 .) “We are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the
contention s as waived.” ( In re Marriage of Falc one & Fyke, supra, at p. 830.)
4. Request to stay enforcement of the judgment Capstone requests that we stay “ any further collection efforts of the subject judgment with the immediate reinstatement of its’ [ sic ] contractor’s license.” Our
decision herei n re nders the stay request moot. Assuming arguendo Capstone’s license has been suspended, the question of its reinstatement is not properly before us in this appeal, which concerns only the judgment rendered by the trial court below, not any actions by th e Contracto rs State License Board.

4 Soohoo argues that the home solicitation contract statutes prohibit quantum meruit recovery. She points to Civil Code section 1689.11, subdivision (c), which provides in pertinent part: “ If the seller has performed any services pursuant to a home solicitation

co ntract or offer prior to its cancellation, the seller is entitled to no compensation.” (See also Weatherall Aluminum Prod uct s Co., supra, 71 Cal.App

. 3d at p. 248 [ “Nor are defendants obliged to pay for services performed by p l aintiff prior to cancellatio n ”].) Capstone argues that Beley v. Municipal Court (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 5, allows for a different result. There, the court held that Civil Code section 1689.11 did not preclude quantum meruit recovery on a home solicitation contract. ( Beley, at pp. 8

- 9; but see Louis Luskin & Sons, Inc. v. Samovitz, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p p

. 537

- 538 [limiting Beley to its facts].) Because this theory was not raised below, and in any event the record does not support it, we need not address these contentions.12 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Capstone’s request for a stay is denied. Soohoo’s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Soohoo shall recover her costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ALDRICH, J.

We concur:

KITCHING, Acting P. J.

JONES, J. 

 Jud ge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.