Quinn v. Unell CA2/8

── Quinn v. Unell CA2/8 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 Quinn v. Unell CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT JERRY QUINN, B331362 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19BBCV00351) v. AMY UNELL, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William A. Crowfoot, Judge. Reversed. The Ruttenberg Law Firm, Mark A. O’Brien and Kenneth G. Ruttenberg for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________  INTRODUCTION Jerry Quinn and Amy Unell lived together for about seven years. They were not married. During the course of their relationship, they started a family and purchased property on Foothill Boulevard in Monrovia as their residence. They began to raise their two young daughters there. Quinn worked in the thoroughbred racehorse industry. Unell worked in the hospitality industry. In 2018, because they were splitting up, they put their home on the market. When the property was purchased, the purchase money loan and title were in Unell’s name only because the lender would not rely on Quinn’s credit. Each, however, contributed half the down payment for the purchase. It is undisputed they had an oral agreement to share all expenses relating to the purchase of the home—mortgage, taxes, insurance, and home warranty. When they sold the home, Unell agreed that Quinn was entitled to take half the proceeds related to the sale of the property. Their agreement was complicated by the fact that Quinn lost his job in 2014. He could not afford to pay his full share of the expenses. He paid what he could each month. Unell made up the difference. She kept a record of what Quinn owed and paid each month and gave him a monthly accounting. Both parties agree that whatever Quinn owed in arrears on the monthly expenses for the purchase of the property would be deducted from his half of the proceeds from the sale of the house. These facts are undisputed. Nevertheless, what prompted Quinn’s lawsuit against Unell was that Unell did not give him half of the proceeds minus only what he owed on the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and home warranty (hereinafter collectively referred to as the mortgage). She also deducted monthly 2 “household expenses” pursuant to what she thought was their agreement to share all household expenses, not just those related to the mortgage. Those global household expenses included everything from the gardener, housekeeper and babysitter to extracurricular activities and tuition for the children to household supplies and groceries. Quinn sued Unell to recover the alleged improper deductions for these other “household expenses.” In his complaint, Quinn sought $113,745 in recoverable deductions. The trial court conducted a three-day bench trial at which both Quinn and Unell testified. The trial court issued a detailed statement of decision rendering judgment in favor of Quinn and against Unell in the amount of $48,252. We reverse the judgment. A. The Complaint On April 25, 2019, plaintiff Quinn filed a complaint for compensatory and punitive damages for breach of joint venture contract (oral); breach of fiduciary duty; and conversion. He alleged that in 2011, he and Unell “e