Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Powers, Jr. appealed a non-jury judgment in favor of his adult son, William Powers III, and the son's domestic partner, Lindsey Keyes, concerning rural San Luis Obispo County property the parties agreed to buy and operate as the "Powers Family Farm" cannabis farm. The trial court found an oral joint venture existed; although appellant held sole title, he owned only 50% and held the remaining 50% in constructive trust for respondents. It also awarded respondent Powers $12,100 for financial abuse of a dependent adult under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30 and entered judgment for respondents on appellant's unlawful detainer complaint.
In 2014 the parties orally agreed respondents would live on and farm the property while appellant helped select it and secure financing. Respondent Powers transferred $12,100 from a disability settlement to appellant for the purchase. Appellant obtained 100% financing and took title alone, but the record did not show he used the $12,100 for the property. Respondents moved in, improved the land, farmed cannabis, and paid operating expenses until the county ordered growing to cease in 2018. By late 2022 they were trying to sell, but the relationship fractured after a sale fell through; in 2023 appellant announced he was "taking over" for unpaid rent, which respondents disputed, claiming co-ownership rather than tenancy.
Appellant filed an unlawful detainer complaint; respondents sued for anticipatory breach of contract, dependent-adult abuse, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, money had and received, accounting, declaratory relief, and improvement damages. The court tried the unlawful detainer first, found for respondents because there was no lease or rent-payment record, then found for respondents on the joint venture and financial-abuse claims but for appellant on the remaining claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It held appellant waived his substantial-evidence challenges by filing an opening brief that omitted a summary of all significant facts in the record, including those supporting the judgment, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204, subdivision (a)(2)(C) (citing Perry v. Kia Motors America, Inc. and Nwosu v. Uba). Even if not waived, the joint venture finding was proper: the second amended complaint alleged facts amounting to an oral joint venture even without using that term, so the trial court did not rely on an unpleaded theory, and substantial evidence—respondent Powers' testimony corroborated by texts and emails, plus the parties' course of dealing—supported the finding.
The constructive trust was likewise proper. Respondent Powers' testimony showed the parties agreed appellant would hold title for respondents' benefit as well as his own, yet appellant contributed no funds, did not use the $12,100 for the purchase, and let respondents' farm income pay the mortgage and carrying costs; he would be unjustly enriched holding 100% of the property. The court rejected appellant's fair-trial, case-management, and judicial-notice contentions, holding the trial court acted within its broad discretion under Code of Civil Procedure sections 607, 631.7, and 128(a)(8) in setting the order of proof, and properly took judicial notice of appellant's verified admissions in other pleadings as admissions made under penalty of perjury, not for the truth of the assertions themselves.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant waives a substantial-evidence challenge by failing to provide a summary of all significant facts in the record, including facts supporting the judgment, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204, subdivision (a)(2)(C).
- A trial court does not violate due process or rely on an unpleaded theory by assigning the correct legal name to a contract that was alleged in the pleadings and tried by the parties.
- A constructive trust is appropriate to prevent unjust enrichment when the titleholder contributed no funds to purchase or retain the property while the other parties supplied the money and labor.
- A trial court has broad discretion to set the order of proof; reversal requires a showing the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or caused a miscarriage of justice.
- Judicial notice may be taken of a party's admissions in verified pleadings from other lawsuits as admissions, not for the truth of the factual assertions.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces that appellants must fairly present all significant facts or risk waiving sufficiency-of-evidence challenges, even when respondents do not participate in the appeal. It confirms that courts look to the substance of pleadings over labels, that course of dealing can prove an oral joint venture, and that judicial notice of verified admissions is proper. The ruling also affirms broad trial-court discretion in managing related proceedings such as an unlawful detainer action tried alongside a civil complaint.