A California appellate court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit involving a complex mix of romance, home improvement, and legal technicalities. On August 21, 2024, Scott Rosson filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, against Kimberly Carr. The trial court had previously dismissed Rosson's complaint without leave to amend on grounds that he was not a licensed contractor.
The case revolves around Rosson's claim for compensation for remodeling Carr's residence. According to the facts presented in court documents, Rosson initially filed his complaint representing himself but later obtained legal counsel to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC). He sought $388,283 for labor performed on Carr’s house. The original complaint stated that Carr had promised to leave her house to Rosson as a beneficiary in her trust as compensation for his work. However, Carr demurred on the grounds that Rosson was not a licensed contractor under California Business and Professions Code § 7031.
Rosson’s FAC included claims for breach of contract, fraud, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. It detailed how he met Carr in 2018 and entered into a romantic relationship with her. By 2019, he had moved into her house and began extensive remodeling work with the understanding that he would be added as a co-beneficiary in her trust. The invoice attached to the FAC listed services amounting to $401,146.40 including installing new pipes, HVAC systems, roofing, siding, flooring, electrical systems, and windows.
When their relationship ended in September 2022, Carr removed him as a beneficiary from her trust and did not compensate him for his labor. In response to Carr’s demurrer citing his unlicensed status under § 7031—which bars unlicensed contractors from seeking compensation—Rosson argued that he was enforcing a property right granted under a nonmarital cohabitation agreement pursuant to Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660.
The trial court sustained Carr’s demurrer without leave to amend after concluding that Marvin did not apply and that § 7031 barred recovery because Rosson was indeed an unlicensed contractor at the time he performed the work.
Rosson appealed this decision but faced further scrutiny regarding whether his role could be considered exempt from licensing requirements under certain conditions applicable to building owners or homeowners improving their own property (§§ 7026; 7044). The appellate court found these arguments insufficient since any interest beneficiaries have in revocable trusts is "merely potential" until it becomes irrevocable upon the settlor's death.
Additionally, Rosson contended he should be compensated based on an alleged joint venture with Carr or under Marvin principles due to their romantic relationship. However, these arguments were also dismissed by both the trial and appellate courts as they did not meet necessary legal standards.
Ultimately seeking monetary damages and restitution for his labor provided during their cohabitation period between 2019-2022 proved futile due to statutory prohibitions against unlicensed contractors claiming compensation regardless of circumstances or relational context.
Representing Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Rosson were attorneys Renay Grace Rodriguez while Defendant-Respondent Kimberly Carr was represented by John A Hribar along with Joseph L Strohman Jr., Jessica A Barajas from Ferguson Case Orr Paterson law firm before Judge Henry J Walsh presiding over Ventura County Superior Court Case No: B3831979